Talk:Paytakaran/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Iranica

Quote:

Half-way through the 7th century, under the caliphate of Osman, the Arabs invaded Albanian territory and the eastern Caucasus and took possession of Paythakaran (Baylaqan), Partaw (Bardaa), Shakashen, Kabala (Kapaghak), Shervan, Shaporan (Shaberan), and Chor (Darband); Aran was to be reunited with Armenia under a single governor. Grandmaster 08:14, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Also please check out the second reference from Iranica. I suggest to merge this article with Beylagan. Grandmaster 08:51, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Have you seen where Baylagan is? Now look at where Paytakaran was. --Eupator 16:07, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

look at http://www.answers.com/topic/paytakaran Don't confuse vandalism with academic dispute which some users can't conduct. Regarding Paytakaran - I quote answers.com : "Paytakaran (Caspiane), was the Easternmost province (nahang) of the Armenian Kingdom[1] located in the territory of modern day Azerbaijan roughly corresponding to the rayons of Lankaran and Salyan."--Dacy69 21:36, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I wrote that! Paytakaran corresponds to Lankaran and Salyan NOT Beylagan. Why the hell are you two adding Beylagan then? It's not academic it's moronic.--Eupator 21:41, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I believe it is time to complain about your language. Answers.com says that Paytakaran is IN AZERBAIJAN. Further - yes, it says it roughly correspondents to Lankaran and Saylan district. But you should know a liitle about Azerbaijani history and geography. Beylagan is an administrative unit in Azerbaijan which in the Soviet time was Jdanov - (name of a Soviet communist leader). And people used to call all this region Lenkoran or Salyan. Jdanov has never been its historical name as we understand a term 'historical'. The point is Baylagan and Paytarakan is the same region. Above you can find reference to the sources. Answers.com information just confirm that this region in Azerbaijan. Let's ask third-party opinion.--Dacy69 21:53, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

You're referencing me to myself! Do you understand that or not? I wrote that, what you see in answers.com, it's from a previous version of this page. Beylagan and Paytarakan are not the same region, Paytarakan and parts of modern Lankaran and Salyan are the same region. You don't even know the regions of your own country.

Map of Baylagan , map of Lankaran and map of . Very close to eachother eh?--Eupator 21:59, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

In Russian version of Wikipedia (written by Armenian users actually) says that it is the same region: http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9F%D0%B0%D0%B9%D1%82%D0%B0%D0%BA%D0%B0%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%BD How you call them? In many Armenian websites you can find claim to that region of Azerbaijan. They say that it is Armenian Paytakaran. What is you show now - maps - it is current layout of Azerbaijani regions - quite close to each other, but not historical.--Dacy69 22:14, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

You obviously don't speak Russian then. "в состав которой входила территория современных Сальянского и Ленкоранского районов Азербайджана". It says modern Lenjoran and Salyan correspond to Paytakaran. Then it says: "Город Пайтакаран (по мнению Сен-Мартена — Бейлаган или Байлакан". The CITY (not the province) Paytakaran according to St. Martin was Baylagan at the meeting of Kura and Araxes rivers.--Eupator 23:27, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Paytakaran the province was south of Arax. This is according to the historical map of 7th c. "Geography." The Iranica editor is either stupid, or talking about a different city called Paytakaran.--TigranTheGreat 02:02, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

O! I don't know Russian. Grandmaster identified sources which says Beylagan and Paytakaran is the same. I am saying the same. This is what I argue. Russian Wikipedia refer to Сен-Мартен, who thought the same about the city. Now about location of the city (not region as a whole) - Сен-Мартен located it at the juncture of Kura and Araks. Look at the map - it is near Sabirabad. It is not Salyan and, definitley, not Lenkaran wрich is far. Yes, currently it is also out of administrative border of Beylagan. This is about the city according Sen-Marten. We are talking about historic region. Paytarakan had connection to Araks river where Beylagan is now. I don't see any sense to dispute further with you and listen to your insults. I am not afraid of third party opinion, mediation, etc. For some reason you don't sign up for mediation (on Urartu) and continue to argue here while insulting your opponent. And for TigranTheGreat -yes, everybody except your sources is "stupid".--Dacy69 02:56, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Understand that this article is not about some city called Paytakaran, it's about the Armenian province. End of story. What dispute on Urartu btw? This is the first time i'm hearing about any dispute.--Eupator 04:12, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Baylaqan/Paytakaran was a province of Albania, along with Utik and Artsakh, which Armenia conquered during the period of its expansion. Those regions had almost no Armenian population, and Albania regained them in the 4th century A.D. The capital of Beylegan was the city of the same name, which existed also in Islamic times and was a large and prosperous city. Now I see that the modern rayon of Beylagan may have different borders than the Albanian province, but in that case we need to move this page to Baylaqan (province) and provide the information on the province and the city in both pre-Islamic and Islamic times. The historian Bosworth, whom Tigran called stupid, is actually one of the leading specialists on Persian history in the world, and he says about the city:

BAYLAQAN, Armenian form Paytakaran (cf. Marquart, Osteuropäische und ostasiatische Streifzüge, Leipzig, 1903, p. 457), a town of the medieval Islamic region of Arran (q.v.), the classical Caucasian Albania, lying in the triangle between the Kor and Aras (Araxes) rivers, in what is today the Mil steppe in Soviet Azerbaijan. In Islamic times, it lay on the highway connecting Ardabil and Bajarvan with Bardaa (qq.v); today, only ruins remain of Baylaqan, to the south-east of Shusha.

As you can see, it is neither in Salyan nor Lenkoran, so the province seems to cover much larger area. Paytakaran was not a historical Armenian land, as some of you claim. According to the book called The Armenian People From Ancient To Modern Times: The Dynastic Periods: From Antiquity to the Fourteenth Century, edited by Richard G. Hovannisian:

Paytakaran, a completely alien land, left the Armenian orbit in 387, as did Korjaik, originally the kingdom of Gordyene, a foreign state that had belonged to Armenia for only about 250 years and whose territory was completely Kurdish in population even before the deportations of 1915.

P 16, Robert. H. Hewsen. Historical Geography

It also says on p 92:

A belt of Armenian peripheral lands fell away to its neighbors: Gugark in the north to Iberia, Utik and Arcax (Artsakh) in the northeast to Caucasian Albania, Paytakaran and Parskahayk in the east to Atrpatakan (modern Azerbaijan), and Korcek and Aljnik in the south to Mesopotamia, thus leaving a considerably reduced territory.

The Armenian People From Ancient To Modern Times: The Dynastic Periods: From Antiquity to the Fourteenth Century (Armenian People from Ancient to Modern Times). ISBN 0312101694

Grandmaster 06:51, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Gm, you are confusing the current rayon with a city by the same name. Two very different things that have nothign to do with one another. Your attempt to connect them together is at best misleading at worst pov pushing.--Eupator 17:53, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Dacy, explain your revert. You're saying see discussion when on your edit comment but you wrote nothing! Blind reverts are unacceptable.--Eupator 19:59, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Eupator, we have a lengthy discussion on Urartu and I left a message for you and TigrantheGreat on your discussion pages to put signature for mediation. And now you say that you don't know anything. If there is no agreement on that I have to refer to other further procedure for resolving the dispute on Urartu.--Dacy69 14:30, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

You keep mentioning a dispute, i'm not aware of any dispute. It's you who thinks we have a dispute. I don't.--Eupator 17:53, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I see - you just playing around. You know perfectly what is the subject of the dispute - we have discussed that. The page Urartu is blocked, and I invited you and TigrantheGreat sign mediation agreement. You don't want - perfect. I am refering to another procedure.--Dacy69 19:44, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Please remain civil and don't accuse me of "playing around". For the last time, I don't consider that a dispute. Do what you wish.--Eupator 19:59, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Eupator and TigrantheGreat - you are doing blind reverts. When I put - see discusion: we have sources, including Armenian own. This is the first point. Second Eupator, I am quite civil. Look at your comments on me and my on you.--Dacy69 23:42, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, and the sources (including Armenian) say nothing about Paytakaran being in Albania.--TigranTheGreat 19:10, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Question

Hey guys, could someone please give me a neutral summary of the dispute here? Thanks, Khoikhoi 06:41, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi Khoikhoi. The dispute is about the province of Paytakaran. Eupator and Tigran claim that it was province of Armenia and nothing else, while I provided sources, showing that Paytakaran is the same as Beylegan/Baylakan, the province and the city of Caucasian Albania. I quoted Iranica, which says that:

BAYLAQAN, Armenian form Paytakaran (cf. Marquart, Osteuropäische und ostasiatische Streifzüge, Leipzig, 1903, p. 457), a town of the medieval Islamic region of Arran (q.v.), the classical Caucasian Albania, lying in the triangle between the Kor and Aras (Araxes) rivers, in what is today the Mil steppe in Soviet Azerbaijan. In Islamic times, it lay on the highway connecting Ardabil and Bajarvan with Bardaa (qq.v); today, only ruins remain of Baylaqan, to the south-east of Shusha.

Eupator claims that there was no city of Paytakaran/Baylakan, and that the province of Paytakaran was located at the territory of modern Lenkoran and Salyan rayons of Azerbaijan. I have no idea how he came to such a conclusion, as he never disclosed his sources, but I would like to refer him to the ancient Armenian historian Movses Khorenatsi:

Кончина святого Григориса от рук варваров

Блаженный Трдат проявлял великую твердость в деле поддержания веры и нравов, особенно в отношении тех, кто проживал в отдаленных частях его государства. Поэтому приходят должностные лица северо-восточных краев, управители дальнего города по названию Пайтакаран, и говорят царю: «Если ты хочешь надлежащим образом вести те края по пути этой веры, то пошли туда епископа из рода святого Григора, ибо они очень просят об этом. Мы уверены, что благодаря прославленному имени Григора они отнесутся с благоговением и к его потомку и будут выполнять все его предписания». Блаженный Трдат соглашается и дает им в епископы юного Григориса, старшего сына Вртанеса. Хотя у царя и были сомнения в правильности этого шага, вызванные несовершеннолетним возрастом (Григориса), но, видя величие его души и вспомнив царствование двенадцатилетнего Соломона над Израилем, он отправил его с большой уверенностью, в сопровождении некоего Санатрука из его собственного рода Аршакуни.

Прибыв туда, Григорис показал добрый пример; он следовал по пути добродетелей своих отцов, превосходя их целомудрием, а в строгости равнялся с царем. Но когда пришла весть о кончине Трдата, варвары, по проискам самого Санатрука и некоторых других погрязших в постоянной лживости алванских мужей, убили блаженного, растоптав его копытами лошадей на поле Ватнеан близ моря, называемого Каспийским. Его дьяконы подняли тело и перенесли в Малый Сюник и похоронили в аване Амарас. Санатрук же, возложив на себя корону, завладел городом Пайтакараном и замышлял захватить власть над всей Арменией при помощи чужих народов. [1]

The quote above refers to the remote city and province of Paytakaran, where “barbarians” led by some Sanatruk and other Albanians killed an Armenian bishop. The footnote says:

Пайтакаран — область и город древней Армении в районе слияния Аракса и Куры.

Paytakaran – province and city of ancient Armenia in the area of junction of the rivers of Araks and Kura.

Now compare it with the quote from Iranica, and you’ll see that it is the same place where Baylaqan/Paytakaran was located. It was at some point part of Armenia, but had Albanian population and Albania restored the control over it in the 4th century A.D. My another quote shows that Paytakaran was a foreign land, only temporary in Armenian control:

Paytakaran, a completely alien land, left the Armenian orbit in 387, as did Korjaik, originally the kingdom of Gordyene, a foreign state that had belonged to Armenia for only about 250 years and whose territory was completely Kurdish in population even before the deportations of 1915.

P 16, Robert. H. Hewsen. Historical Geography

The Armenian People From Ancient To Modern Times: The Dynastic Periods: From Antiquity to the Fourteenth Century. ISBN 0312101694

Paytakaran was the Armenian spelling of the name of Beylegan/Baylakan, the province and the city of Caucasian Albania, which existed also in Islamic times and the modern town of Beylegan is located not faraway from the ruins of the ancient city. I suggest renaming the article to Beylegan, as it was known under that name for much longer period of time. Grandmaster 06:18, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Grandmaster is attemting to connect a city by the same name with the province to push his pov. One has nothing to do with the other. The Armenian province of Paytakaran was on the Caspian shore, nowhere near the city of Baylaqan. His sources clearly mention a CITY. The province was called Caspiane by Greco-Roman authors. For the borders of Paytakaran see:--Eupator 17:59, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. None of the sources above say that the town of Baylakan was in the province of Paytakaran. In fact, as GM's source Iranica states, Baylakan was built by persian king Kavat (early 6th c. AD). Paytakaran as a province ceased to exist in 428 AD. There is no way Paytakaran could be in Baylaqan.--TigranTheGreat 00:55, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

None of the sources? I quoted an Armenian source that says:

Пайтакаран — область и город древней Армении в районе слияния Аракса и Куры.

Paytakaran – province and city of ancient Armenia in the area of junction of the rivers of Araks and Kura.

And then Iranica that says:

BAYLAQAN, Armenian form Paytakaran (cf. Marquart, Osteuropäische und ostasiatische Streifzüge, Leipzig, 1903, p. 457), a town of the medieval Islamic region of Arran (q.v.), the classical Caucasian Albania, lying in the triangle between the Kor and Aras (Araxes) rivers, in what is today the Mil steppe in Soviet Azerbaijan.

So you guys are trying to say that there were two provinces and cities of Paytakaran, or what? Both sources place Paytakaran/Baylaqan at the junction of two rivers, i.e. where the ruins of Baylakan are. We have no sources that support the idea that Paytakaran was located somewhere else. Grandmaster 10:46, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Btw, Eupator, I don’t know who made your map, but if you look at it, you’ll se that the junction of Araks and Kura is part of Paytakaran province, which was a completely alien land to Armenia according to the sources. Grandmaster 11:43, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

The Armenian Foreign Ministry made that map. It was an alien land for 700 years under Armenia and where everyone spoke Armenian according to Strabo? You're funny Gm. :) Here's more maps with Paytakaran shown on the Caspian shore far from the modern rayon of Baylagan:[2], [3]...and you want to merge this and Baylagan?--Eupator 15:23, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

That map also shows the confluence of Araks and Kura as part of Paytakaran/Beylegan. And it’s not me calling it “alien land”, it’s the book on the history of Armenia, edited by Hovannissian. Plus, it does not look like people there spoke Armenian. Here’s another quote from an Armenian historian Draskhanakertsi:

После смерти святого Трдата нечестивый второй Санатрук,* родом из дома Аршакуни, которого Трдат поставил правителем города Пайтакаран,** взбунтовался и сам возложил на себя корону.

** Пайтакаран — город, центр одноименного наханга, близ современного Орен-Кала на Мильской равнине. В 338 г. Пайтакаран «стал временной столицей Албанского царства, здесь находилась резиденция мазкутских Аршакидов. (Армения по «Ашхарацуйц»-у, с. 88).

Следуя неправедному его повелению, те варварские северные народы* убили поставленного епископом Алванка** блаженного [65] отрока Григориса*** из рода св. Григория, затоптав его конями на поле Ватнеан.**** Святое тело его перевезли и упокоили в гюхе Амарас,***** что в Малом Сюнике.****** [4]

So it says that Paytakaran was the city and the center of the province of the same name, located next to Oren-kala on the Mil plain (in Azerbaijan). Oren-kala is what the ruins of Beylegan are called nowadays. On Oren-kala see Great Soviet Encyclopedia: [5]

So Paytakaran was populated by ”barbarian Northern people” (i.e. Albanians), and was located at the place called nowadays Oren-Kala, not far from the modern Beylegan. I think I provided more than enough sources to demonstrate that Paytakaran is the Armenian spelling of the name of Beylegan (see Iranica, etc) and the city was located at the junction of the rivers of Araks and Kura. Grandmaster 06:17, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

According to the Albanian historian Moses Kalankatuatsi, Paytakaran was a city in Albania:

А после смерти Трдата некий Санатрук воцарился в Алуанке в городе Пайтакаране и восстал против армян. Хосров, сын Трдата, призвал Антиоха с греческими войсками, Багарата с войском Запада и Миhрана, бдешха Иверии. Объединившись со всеми с ними, он двинулся на Алуанк. Санатрук, оставив в городе Пайтакаране многочисленное войско, с остальными алуанскими войсками поспешно перешел к персидскому царю Шапуhу. [6]

(After the death of Trdat, some Sanatruk became a king in Albania (Aluank) in the city of Paytakaran and revolted against Armenians, etc). Grandmaster 07:44, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Also, the quote from Strabo is wrong, it never mentions Caspiane as part of Armenia, in fact Strabo says:

To the country of the Albanians belongs also the territory called Caspiane, which was named after the Caspian tribe, as was also the sea; but the tribe has now disappeared. [7] Grandmaster 08:37, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

The juncture of Kura-Arax is different from the triangle of Kura-Arax, so these are two different locations, hence B is not P. P was south of Arax, B was north of Arax. As for Sanatruk, as the quote above shows, he was placed by Arm. king Trdat as the governor of the Armenian province of P. He rebelled against Armenia, and was defeated by Trdat. So, P. was clearly a province of Armenia. The Barbarians didn't live in P., they just killed the Armenian bishop. Strabo states that both Armenia and Albania have provinces named Caspiene. And Strabo states that in Caspiene people speak Armenian:

Artaxias and Zariadris, who formerly were generals of Antiochus the Great,9 but later, after his defeat, reigned as kings (the former as king of Sophene, Acisene, Odomantis, and certain other countries, and the latter as king of the country round Artaxata), and jointly enlarged their kingdoms by cutting off for themselves parts of the surrounding nations,--I mean by cutting off Caspiane and Phaunitis and Basoropeda from the country of the Medes; and the country along the side of Mt. Paryadres and Chorsene and Gogarene, which last is on the far side of the Cyrus River, from that of the Iberians; and Carenitis and Xerxene, which border on Lesser Armenia or else are parts of it, from that of the Chalybians and the Mosynoeci; and Acilisene and the country round the Antitaurus from that of the Cataonians; and Taronitis from that of the Syrians; and therefore they all speak the same language, as we are told. --TigranTheGreat 09:42, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

So Strabo says that Artaxias cut the province of Caspiane from Medes, i.e. Caspiane was originally the province of Medes. According to the same source, it was also the province of Caucasian Albania. According to Strabo, they spoke the same language as result of the conquest by the above kings, i.e. it was not the original language of the provinces they cut from “surrounding nations”. As for the juncture of Kura and Araks, it can be on both banks, but Oren-kala, to which the reference is made, is located exactly in the triangle formed by the 2 rivers. I’m not saying that Paytakaran was not province of Armenia, but it was a foreign land, attached to Armenia, which is stated even in the History of Armenian people (completely alien land). Armenia conquered it from Medes or Albania, and lost it to Albania in the 4th century. Kalankatuatsi says that Paytakaran was in Albania. And it is also interesting that Paytakaran was ruled by Sanatruk, who was not Armenian, even though he was appointed by the Armenian king. So I think we should restore the statement that Payatakaran was the province of Caucasian Albania, and it is also beyond any doubt that Paytakaran is the same as Beylegan. Iranica article explicitly says so, and the Armenian sources point the same location of the ruins of Oren-kala, which is ancient Beylegan. Grandmaster 10:38, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't matter who they cut it from, as long as it's not Albania. Hence it wasn't originally Albanian. By the way, Strabo clearly states that these lands were reconquests--4 centuries earlier Armenia had ruled a large portion of Asia. (Strabo, Geography, 11.13.5: "In ancient times Greater Armenia ruled the whole of Asia, after it broke up the empire of the Syrians" So these areas were part of Armenia, then they got to Media, and then Armenia got it back. And yes, everyone spoke Armenian as a result of the conquests--the kings conquered the Armenian speaking areas, and now the whole land speaks Armenian.

B can't be P because P was a city in 300's, and B was built in 500's (according to Iranica). So clearly it was a different Paytakaran. Moses of Chrorene and Movses D. clearly state that it was part of Armenia, which rebelled against Armenia. The ethnicity of its governor doesn't matter--he was the employee of the Armenia king, ruling over an Armenian province.--TigranTheGreat 20:06, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Khoikhoi, you asked for summary of dispute. It is quite lengthy now. I don't see any sense to continue this dispute. The dispute can be resolved through third party involvement only. I had participated in the discussion before, and replies of opponents were replete of insults.--Dacy69 22:38, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Welcome back Adil ;)--Eupator 23:35, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

By the way, about the events surrounding Sanatruk and Paytakaran in 300's. Armenian chronicles of the time are clear that Paytakaran was part of Armenia. Here is Movses Khorenatsi (III.3):

Блаженный Трдат проявлял великую твердость в деле под­держания веры и нравов, особенно в отношении тех, кто проживал в отдаленных частях его государства. Поэтому приходят должно­стные лица северо-восточных краев, управители дальнего города по названию Пайтакаран

Trdat was firm in upholding the faith, especially among those who lived in the farthest parts of his state. Therefore official persons come to him from the north-easterns areas, rulers of the far-away city of Paytakaran.

Pavstos Buzand, III.7 (about Sanatruk/Sanesan's rebellion against Armenia):

О разбойничьем набеге царя мазкутов на землю, подвластную армянскому царю, о происшедшей большой войне и о том, как он погиб вместе со своим войском.

В то время маскутский царь Санесан, сильно разгневавшись, проникся враждой к сородичу своему, армянскому царю Хосрову, и собрал он все войска, — гуннов, похов, таваспаров, хечматаков, ижмахов, гатов и глуаров, гугаров, шичбов и чилбов, и баласичев и егерсванов, и несметное множество других разношерстных кочевых племен[10], все множество войск, которым он повелевал. Он перешел свою границу, большую реку Куру и наводнил армянскую страну.

About attacks of the Mazkut king on the lands under the dominion of the Armenian king, and about how he died with his troops.

Mazkut king Sanesan, gathered all the troops--huns etc etc (the barbarians), and crossed the border, the great river Kura, and flooded the Armenian country.

Draskhanakertsi too talks how Sanatruk "rebelled" against Armenian king in the Armenian city of Paytakaran. So, clearly it was part of Armenia. And keep in mind this was 200 years before BAylakan was founded by Kavat I (According to Iranica). So, if Baylaqan had another name Paytakaran, it must have been a second city Paytakaran, unrelated to the province.--TigranTheGreat 01:57, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Quoting Buzand:

О каспах.

Потом спарапет Мушег жестоко отомстил стране парсиев [7] и городу Пайтакарану, ибо жители этой страны отложились от армянского царя и изменили ему. Спарапет-полководец Мушег, прибыв туда, многих из них казнил, отрубив головы, многих взял в плен, а остальных обложил данью, взял у них заложников и там оставил правительственных чиновников.

[7] Из этого места мы узнаем, что в стране Каспк (Каспиана античных авторов) и в этот период жило упоминаемое Страбоном племя парсиев или паррасиев (С. Т. Еремян).

About Caspis

Then sparapet Musheg took cruel revenge on the country of parcies and the city of Paytakaran, because the people of that country broke away from the Armenian king and betrayed him.

The footnote:

From this place we learn that the country of Kaspk (Caspiane of antique authors) was populated at that time by the tribe of Parsies or parracies, mentioned by Starbo. [8]

So Paytakaran was indeed an alien territory to Armenia, populated by caspies and parcies. Both Starbo and Buzand affirm that.

Now as for Iranica, they clearly mention Paytakaran as being the same as Beylegan. Plus, the location is exactly the same, in the triangle between the two rivers.

So to summarize, the sources make it clear that Paytakaran/Beylegan was a city and a province, which was at times part of Armenia, but it was a foreign land with Albanian population (completely alien land), which was conquered by Armenia when the latter was expanding, but it was later lost back to Albania. Strabo clearly mentions Caspiane as part of Albania: To the country of the Albanians belongs also the territory called Caspiane. So removal of the statement that Paytakaran was province of Albania cannot be justified, so please stop doing that. As for the time of foundation of the city, the sources may provide different dates, but it does not mean that there were two different cities with the same name at the same place. Grandmaster 05:48, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes it does. If they were built in different times, then they are different. And your quote clearly states that P was in Armenia. Parcies have nothing to do with Albanians. And Strabo doesn't say P. was in Albania. Only the Albanian Caspiene (and I stated it in the article as well).--TigranTheGreat 09:09, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Explain then what country of parices has to do with Armenia? It clearly had ethnically distinct population. And Albanian Caspiane is the same as Paytakaran. Grandmaster 10:25, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

There is no evidence that Albanian Caspiene is Paytakaran. Strabo says both countries had Caspiene. IT couldn't be a joint control, so clearly there were two separate provinces. Parises are the persians. In the Armenian original, Buzand says "parsits yerkir,"--Country of persians. in the 5th century (i.e. Buzand's time), Paytakaran had been cut off and given to the persian mainland (and not Albania), hence he calls the area Persians' country. Yet all 3 sources--MD, MC, and PB, state that it was part of Armenia before 400's. And neither says population was non-Armenian. Strabo says they were Armenian.--TigranTheGreat 02:13, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

If it were, it would have been speciafically distinguished as it is usually indicated in historic documents: one province or region with two ethnic groups, languages or with different state affiliations: French and British Guiana or Italian and German Tyrol or like we distinguish nowadays belonging of Kurdistan to different states - Turkish or Iranian Kurdistan. We have evidence which say that this land is alien to Armenia, people speak the same language (not two). Though it could belong to two different state in different time period. And there is the historic document which tells about rebellions against the Armenian king, that it is the sign that Armenia was in temporary possession of that region--Dacy69 02:54, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Temporary? Paytakaran was part of Armenia for an attested almost 700 years (since the 2nd century BC until the 4th century AD)! Who possesed Paytakaran afterwards along with the other Eastern Armenian provinces? Sassanid Iran. So when was Paytakaran under Albania? The answer is NEVER.--Eupator 04:14, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Paytakaran map - Armenian province Nareklm 04:35, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Eupator, have you read Strabo? To the country of the Albanians belongs also the territory called Caspiane, which was named after the Caspian tribe, as was also the sea; but the tribe has now disappeared. Tigran’s version that Strabo talks about 2 different Caspianes is just his personal opinion, not supported by any source whatsoever, so it has no place in the article as per NOR. So Caspaine was the Albanian province, named after the tribe of Caspies, who lived there. Caspiane, later Paytakaran/Beylegan, had its capital in the triangle formed by Kura and Araks, at the ruins called Oren-kala, which is identified as Beylegan. Even Armenian sources attest to that. Iranica says Payatakaran is the Armenian name of Baylakan. According to the History of Armenian people, Paytakaran was a completely alien land for Armenia, and left Armenian orbit forever in 387. So it was a foreign land, conquered by Armenia and later lost. At the times of Buzand it was populated by parcies, we don’t know if they were Persians or not, we have no sources to support that claim. Buzand says: Then sparapet Musheg took cruel revenge on the country of parcies and the city of Paytakaran, because the people of that country broke away from the Armenian king and betrayed him. Now if assume that country of parices is Persia, then tell when Persians were subordinate to the Armenian king? Armenians revenged the country of parcies (Paytakaran), because people of that country wanted to break free from Armenia, but it could not be Persia, who was a major player that eventually destroyed Armenian kingdom. Also, the footnote clearly states: From this place we learn that the country of Kaspk (Caspiane of antique authors) was populated at that time by the tribe of Parsies or parracies, mentioned by Starbo. End of story. Population was not Armenian. Grandmaster 05:46, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Eupator, 2nd century BC to 4th century AD make about 500 years without considering the fact that Albania alternated control over the right bank of Kura several times prior to 387 (see Caucasian Albania). Also, Eupator and TigranTheGreat, your point isn't very clear. If you disagree with the fact that Paytakaran constituted part of Albania at some point, you're wrong because Moses of Kalankatuik names it so, when he talks about Sanatruk in I:XII. If you are arguing that Paytakaran was one of the original provinces of Armenia, you're also wrong: if the Armenian kingdom became fully independent by the 4th century BC (according to the Orontid Dynasty article, also see the respective map), and Paytakaran was acquired only 200 years after, it is obvious that the territory had nothing to do with Armenia initally. Parishan 08:48, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Which is attested by Strabo, who said that that Artaxias cut the province of Caspiane from Medes, i.e. it was not an Armenian land, but as the other source attests a “completely alien land” to Armenia, which it conquered from its neighbors. At the times of Strabo it was part of Caucasian Albania ('To the country of the Albanians belongs also the territory called Caspiane”) Grandmaster 10:31, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

You have yet to show, how or when was Paytakaran part of Albania. Again, it never was. Artaxias took it from the Medes, not Albanians. You can't even say in theory well the Medes had taken it from the Albanians because the Medes have been around since at least the 7the century BC and the first time we hear about the Albanians is in the 4th century BC fighting for Persians against Alexander.

Strabo says that Armenia swallowed three Median provinces: Caspiane, Faunitis and Basoropeda. So where does Albania fit into this? By the time Armenia loses Paytakaran/Caspiane there is no such thing as Albania! See Archaeology at the North-East Anatolian Frontier By A. G. Sagona, page 53. The tribes that inhabited Paytakaran were median not Albanian. That explains how they could have been easily Armenianized, Armenianizing Albanians would not have been so easy because their language was so alien. But Median and Armenian were very close. Sagona says that all those three provinces were inhabited by Median tribes not Albanian, particularly by Phasians. Now Strabo also says:"To the country of the Albanians belongs also the territory called Caspiane, which was named after the Caspian tribe, as was also the sea;" (Book 11.4.5) . So this can only mean that there were two Caspiane and Tigran said all along. Otherwise how could there be a Median Caspiane taken by Armenians and an Albanian Caspiane? All sources also testify that Paytakaran stretched to the Caspian Sea and induded the Apcheron Strait.--Eupator 15:44, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

How someone can imply that there were two Caspians from all sources above? It has never been mentioned in historic documents. It is only Eupator's and Tigran's asumption. That's it.--Dacy69 16:48, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Explain Strabo's account that Caspiane was a Median province when Artaxias took it?--Eupator 17:07, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Strabo says that Artaxias took Caspiane from Medes, but by the time of Strabo Armenia lost it to Albania. That’s why Strabo says: 'To the country of the Albanians belongs also the territory called Caspiane”. It was formerly province of Medes, then Armenia, and then Albania, maybe it changed hands a coupe of times more. It was originally populated by caspies, and later by other tribes such as parcies, in any case it was an alien land to Armenia, which was attached to Armenia by military force, but was later lost forever. We cannot ignore sources, and Strabo clearly mentions Caspiane as a province of Albania. The article should reflect the fact. Grandmaster 18:20, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Here's yet another source:

Pompey then rearranged the political geography of the east. The exact details of the changes and their chronology are not always clear. Some were changed after Pompey and the young Tigranes fell out and after Parthian intervention. But the upshot was that by 59 BC Syria and Phoenicia had passed to Rome, Sophene to Cappadocia, and Adiabene to Parthia. Lesser Armenia went, probably, to Brogitarus, son-in-law of Deiotarus king of Galatia, and Caspiane to the Albanians.

A. E. Redgate. The Armenians (Peoples of Europe) ISBN-10: 0631220372

Grandmaster 18:26, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Your sources are all conflicting eachother. There is no indiciation that Strabo is talking about his own time there. Either we state that they are conflicting eachother or we draw a logical conlusion that there were different Caspiane's. The Caspiane given by Pompey to the Albanians must be the Albanian Caspiane that was taken by Tigranes, we know that Tigranes held territory North and East of the Kura that he lost, he never lost anything West of the Kura so that Caspiane is obviosuly not the same Caspiane.--Eupator 19:51, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

We have no sources supporting the idea of 2 Caspaines, so as per NOR rule we exclude it. As for Strabo, he clearly speaks in the present tense when he says that Caspiane belongs (not belonged) to Albanians. At the same time, the conquest of Artaxias was an event that occurred long before the times of Strabo. So it is obvious that according to Strabo Caspiane belonged to Albania. Plus other sources that support the fact. How many more references do you need? Grandmaster 19:59, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

"By the time Armenia loses Paytakaran/Caspiane there is no such thing as Albania!" - then how come Moses of Kalankatuik states: After Trdat's death a certain by the name of Sanatruk came to power in Aluank, in the city of Paytakaran. Parishan 23:34, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

MK talks about the Armenian Albania--south of Kura. Now, about Strabo's present tense--he states "Armenians took (i.e. regained) Caspiene, etc etc, and now they all speak Armenian." He does speak in present tense about the lands conquered by Artashes--they now all speak Armenian. Hence, they are still part of the same kingdom (of Armenia).

We already state in the article that Strabo says Albania had Caspiene. We just can't say it was Paytakaran, as it would be NOR.--TigranTheGreat 23:44, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

There's no such thing as the "Armenian Albania." And I don't see how "took" in this context means "regained." If it says "...now they all speak Armenian", it can only mean that they didn't speak it before, hence proving the fact that Caspiene had nothing to do with Armenia or Armenians prior to its conquest by Tigranes. As for Paytakaran, there are sources, which state that it really is Caspiene.

World History Encyclopædia, v. 2. Moscow: Mysl Publ., 1956: Caspiene, with its capital in Paytakaran, was also under the Armenian dominance... [9] Parishan 00:29, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

After Utik was taken by Persians, and made into the Albanian marzpanate, Armenians called the area Aluanits Yerkir or Hayots Aluank. It was an Armenian populated and ruled area, and was separate from the Albania north of Kura. "now" means that they spoke Armenian before, but were separated from Armenia, but now they all speak Armenian. "took" means "regained" because they used to belong to Armenia before (in the 6th c BC onward), as stated by Strabo. And Paytakaran was the Armenian portion of Caspiene.

By the way, the idea that somehow Strabo doesn't include Paytakaran as part of Armenia is rejected by both the Greek sources and modern ones. Strabo, Pliny the Elder, and Ptolemy all stated that the boundary was river Kura. Even Iranica confirms this: "The frontier along the Kura (Kor), affirmed by Strabo" http://www.iranica.com/newsite/articles/v1f8/v1f8a022.html. Paytakaran was south of Kura, so clearly part of Armenia. Now, whoever said that Caspiene went to Albania, it must have been the Albanian Caspiene. Tigranes conquered Albania, and then the whole Albania (including Caspiene) broke away. --TigranTheGreat 04:05, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Plus, since in the Armenian Caspiene everyone spoke Armenian, while in the Albanian Caspiene the Caspian tribes lived, (not to mention that in the rest of Albania people spoke in 26 different languages), these are two different lands--one north of Kura, the other south.--TigranTheGreat 04:23, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Then again, when one lists a bunch of conquered provinces and says "and now they all speak XYZ" (given the time frame) it could mean that XYZ has only been spoken there since certain point in history, i.e. initally some other language had been in use before being replaced by XYZ as a result of such and such event.

And where does Strabo state that Caspiene belonged to Armenia from "the 6th c BC onward" when this is what Armenia looked like in the 3rd century BC? I'm not saying Caspiene/Paytakaran never belonged to Armenia at all. However it wasn't part of Armenia originally, nor did it last too long within its boundaries after having been conquered. For the third time, I will have to draw your attention to Moses of Kalankatuik, book I, chapter 12, where Paytakaran is clearly named part of Albania ca. 330 (right after Tiridat III's death). Parishan 05:57, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, and for the 3rd time, MK was talking about the Armenian province of Albania, and only a tiny portion of Paytakaran (i.e. the city of Paytakaran), according to him, belonged to this province (actually, even here he was wrong, but it's a different matter).

According to strabo, Armenia grew twice in size in 190 BC. There is no way a small country could assimilate a foreign population twice its size in a mere century (till Strabo's time). So, your interpretation doesn't hold.

Strabo says Armenia ruled whole of Asia in 6th c BC. Paytakaran was part of Asia. So, it belonged to Armenia. Your map in the 3rd century shows what Armenia looked like after its lands were taken by other nations. luckily, Armenia regained those lands from these nations.--TigranTheGreat 06:09, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Here is more on difference between the Armenian and caucasian Albanias. It's from GM's source:

• Алванк — так, в отличие от греко-римской Албании, начиная с марзпанского периода, в армянских источниках называлось междуречье Куры и Аракса с провинциями Арцах и Утик, от крепости Хунаракерт (Хнаракерт) и до места их слияния. После раздела Армении в 387 г. между Византией и Персией персидские власти объединили территории Кавказской Албании и восточных нахангов Армении Арцаха и Утика в одну административную единицу— Албанию под управлением персидского наместника — марзпана. Однако уже после восстании 450—451 г. и 480 г. Персия была вынуждена предоставить Армении значительную независимость, поставив ее правителем шихана Ваана Мамиконяна. В это же время в Арцахе и Утике местный армянский княжеский род Араншахиков.

http://www.armenianhouse.org/draskhanakertsi/history-ru/chapter11_20.html

I.e. Aluank--contrary to the Greco-roman Albania, starating with the marzpanate period (5th c), Armenian sources call the Kura-arax mesopotamia Aluank. After division of Armenia, the area and Cauc. Albania were joined to create a marzpanate called Albania. However, Armenia later gained greater independence (in later 5th c.), and at the same time in Artsakh and Utik the local Armenian noble house of Aranshahiks ruled.

Armenian Soviet Encyclopedia states the same. So does Khorenatsi--the Kura-Arax area was the inheritted land of Armenian Sisakans (called Aluanits plain), while north of Kura is where "barbarians" lived.

Here is Russian historian shnirelman stating the same (in his critique of Azerbaijani falsifications):

В то же время полностью игнорировался тот факт, что многое в этом тексте было заимствовано из армянских источников и что «страна Агванк» Мовсеса Каганкатваци была вовсе не идентична изначальной Кавказской Албании. Короче говоря, над рукописью Мамедовой, очевидно, основательно поработал ее редактор З.М. Буниятов.

www.vehi.net/istoriya/armenia/albanskymif.html

i.e. Azeri historians ignored the fact that MK'S work was based on earlier Armenian chronicles, and that "country Aluank" of MK was not the same as the original Caucasian Albania.--TigranTheGreat 06:18, 23 December 2006 (UTC) --TigranTheGreat 06:17, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

There was no such thing as Armenian Aluank. It is just an opinion of a modern Armenian scholar, which has no independent confirmation. We cannot take it as a fact due to obvious bias of the source. Independent sources say something different. Of course the country of Agvank was not identical to the original Caucasian Albania, but it was not Armenian Aluank either. Modern Armenia is also not identical to the ancient one. According to Strabo, Caspiane was part of Caucasian Albania. He also says that Artaxias conquered it from Medes, but by the times of Strabo Armenia lost it again, according to another source, Pompey attached it to Albania. So it was part of Medes, then part of Armenia, then part of Albania. As for existence of 2 Caspianes, it is just your personal opinion, and original research is not allowed here. We don’t have any sources that support the idea of existence of two Caspianes. But we have sources that say that Paytakaran was a completely alien land to Armenia, and according to Buzand it was populated by the tribe of parcies. The statement that they spoke Armenian does not mean that all the people in those provinces were Armenian. In the USSR all people spoke Russian, which was the official language, but not all Soviet people were Russian. I think further denial is pointless, we have too many sources to support the fact that Paytakaran/Beylegan was the province of Caucasian Albania. It was part of Armenia as well for a certain period of time, but had no Armenian population. Grandmaster 06:27, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

In Strabo's time, Paytakaran was part of Armenia. This negates any claim that it was part of Albania. Strabo and the Greeks never said that Caspiene south of Kura was ever in any way whatsoever connected with Albania. Saying so is pure fiction and original research.

Anyone who speaks Armenian is Armenian. Buzand never says parcies lived in P. Parcies simply had en empire, and now they are building nukes. B is not P since they were built in different times. Strabo never says Caspiene was lost to Albania, it's your original research. Armenian Aghvank is a fact, and it's confirmed by every single Armenian historian of Soviet and modern times, as well as Russian historians, and Armenian chronicles of medieval times. Sure it was an alien land that was Armenian populated by Armenians. Its climate, landscape, existence of a sea were totally alien to the rest of the Armenian upland, but it was still an Armenian land. --TigranTheGreat 03:37, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

-- Tigran, so many assumptions without substantial proof or reference to historic sources (putting aside the work of modern Armenian historians which can be biased as anyone's, particulularly now, in time of nationalism, and particularly in the Caucasus).

And your reflection about alien land and geography: "Sure it was an alien land that was Armenian populated by Armenians. Its climate, landscape, existence of a sea were totally alien to the rest of the Armenian upland, but it was still an Armenian land" - how we can make such conclusion? Then the Caucasus is Russian land. Why not? It is just their upland which they possessed for 200 years--Dacy69 21:45, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Dacy/Adil and Gm, З.М. Буниятов is Armenian? Are you calling Khorenatsi, Kagankavatsi and Drashxanakertsi Armenian nationalists? There was no such thing as nationalism, so how could they be nationalists?-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 22:18, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

There was only one Caspiane, which was part of Albania according to Strabo. So far you have not provided any source to support your claim that there were 2 Caspianes, so as per NOR your version is excluded. As there was only one Caspiane, and according to Strabo it was part of Albania, the article should say so. Plain and simple. Grandmaster 05:42, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Another source for Tigran, the article from Iranica about the Caspies. It says, inter alia:

Herodotus, Strabo, and other classical authors repeatedly mention the Caspians but do not seem to know much about them; they are grouped with other inhabitants of the southern shore of the Caspian Sea, like the Amardi, Anariacae, Cadusii (q.v.), Albani, and Vitii (Eratosthenes apud Strabo, 11.8.8), and their land (Kaspiane) is said to be part of Albania (Theophanes Mytilenaeus apud Strabo, 11.4.5). Whether or not they belonged to the Median empire is not clear. According to Herodotus (3.92.2), they, together with the Pausicae, Pantimathi, and Daritae, were included in the eleventh nomos of the Achaemenid empire under Darius I. This region later was attached to Media Atropatene and Albania in turn. [10]

So where’s second Caspiane in that area? The article mentions another Caspiane in Pamir or Kashmir, but that one could not be part of either Armenia or Albania. Grandmaster 06:22, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Eupator, I am not Adil or whoever you think. I don't need to use someone's identity. I have my own. Please talk on substance. And on identity - I have my personal page where my profile is - enough not to be confused with someone else, I believe.--Dacy69 06:54, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

About nationalism of medieval historians. Some of them were not so accurate and impartial. But, in general, I agree, there was no nationalism at that time, like it is now unfortunately. Gandzakatsi wrote about a Turkic ruler Melik-shah, who freed Armenian priesthood from taxes: "He (Melikshah) tamed the Universe not with wars and violence but with love and peace" - "покорил Вселенную не столько войной и насилием, сколько любовью и миром" (Киракос Гандзакаци. История Армении. М., 1976. С. 89). But it is different subject, let's return to Paytakaran.--Dacy69 07:21, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

But who says that those ancient authors were nationalist? On the contrary, what they say support the sources that I quoted. I referred to Moses Kalankatuatsi, who said: After the death of Trdat, some Sanatruk became a king in Aluank (Albania) in the city of Paytakaran and revolted against Armenians. Grandmaster 07:36, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Now as for Moses Khorenatsi, he says:

Также Страна касбов²³⁵ по этому поводу отложилась от нашего царя. Поэтому Арташес посылает на них Смбата со всей армянской ратью и сам сопровождает их в течение семи дней. Смбат, придя туда, усмиряет всех, а Страну касбов разоряет и уводит в Армению пленных больше, чем из Артаза, и с ними их царя Зардманоса.

235 Страна касбов — область низовьев Куры и Аракса (впадавших в древности в Каспийское море порознь), примыкающая к Каспийскому морю; страна Каспиана, упоминаемая Страбоном в связи с завоеваниями армянского царя Арташеса I.

The Country of kasbs also broke away from our king for the same reason. Therefore Artashes sent against them Smbat with the whole Armenian army and personally accompanied them for seven days. Upon arrival there Smbat pacified everyone, plundered the Country of kasbs and took away to Armenia more prisoners than were taken from Artaz, and their king Zardmanos was among them.

Footnote: The country of kasbs – the area of the lower courses of Kura and Araks (which in ancient times flowed into the Caspian sea separately), adjacent to the Caspian sea; the country of Caspiane, mentioned by Strabo in connection with the conquests of the Armenian king Artashes I. [11] Grandmaster 11:15, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Fully agree. I have not call ancient historians nationalists. It is about modern ones.--Dacy69 19:33, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Unprotected too soon?

Uh-oh, did I unprotect this too soon? —Wknight94 (talk) 18:31, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Guess so. We'll just pretend I didn't do that. —Wknight94 (talk) 19:12, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

About the mediation

I am apparently part of the dispute, I wasn't even aware of, but since I have been dragged in it without my approuval, it will be nice for the users to tell me around what the dispute revolve so that I can be aware of the dispute I am allegedly part of.

My revert, since Grandmaster is creating false rumors on the reason of my revert. I did not revert to delete sourced materials, I did even not read what was added to be honest. I have reverted because the Azerbaijani name was in the lead, apparently just because the Armenian name was there.

Lets explain my motives for the revert.

There has been an Armenian province of Paytakaran, a historic place, written in Armenian script and transliteration. The classical name for a historic Armenian province is relevant. Unless there is now a Paytakaran in Azerbaijan on the same locality a sort of continuity, there is no relevance is including that name. It can not be considered as a local place, it is a historic province, and city, its Archaic, classical Armenian name has a historic relevance. What is the relevance of an Azeris word, which is modern and written by a modern alphabet? It doesn't have more relevance than lets say its Japanese transliteration. This was the reason of my revert, and I admit things were deleted in the process, but again, I had no idea of the content of the material deleted. Fad (ix) 04:54, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Taking a closer look at your revert Grandmaster, I would have probably reverted it. You guys are mixing different things, Paytakaran, Baylaqan, Balasakan, Balasajan. Paytakaran is obviously the Armenian province, the second is the town, the third is not clear. In Armenian for instance they use the original Armenian name and an Arabic version which Dowsett find it as unexpected since the original Armenian version exist. Balasajan must had lain in the Muqan steppe. V. Minorsky vaguely tries to cover those differenciations. (see: Caucasica IV, V. Minorsky, Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London, Vol. 15, No. 3. (1953)) What we know, is that the term Paytakaran, or more specifically transliterated P'aytakaran is from the Armenian name for the province, for the rest, nothing is clear. Fad (ix) 05:30, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

It would also be best to cover Caspiane as less as possible, the link is also not much clear. Fad (ix) 05:32, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

So you reverted me even without reading my edits? And you think it is OK by the rules to do so? What do you think about mediation then? You will have a chance to express your opinion and provide your own sources there. I don't want to waste my time citing all the sources all over again. Grandmaster 11:49, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Do you take pleasure to twist peoples word? I reverted you based on a guideline, while you had nothing to say regarding that guideline you called it a pretext to revert you; you then reverted me, a full revert. I justified my revert. As for your sources, after being included in the conflict without my approuval I indeed have read the content. Baylaqan is NOT Paytakaran, the Armenian text use the term Baylaqan and Paytakaran, one is the town, the other is the province. You can not use records of different Paytakaran. Fad (ix) 17:41, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Your posting shows your approach to editing. If you cared to read the above discussion and sources, you would know that Paytakaran was both province and city, known in Muslim sources as Beyleqan. Also, do you agree to mediation or not? Grandmaster 14:29, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

No, V. Minorsky himself is not convinced of this as he explains on my above reference. Fad (ix) 18:25, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

That's false. Muslim sources are irrelevant first of all since when Paytakaran existed there were no Muslims, therefore Muslim sources cannot talk about Paytakaran.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 14:58, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

They are relevant, because Beylegan existed in Muslim times. Ancient Albanian cities such as Ganja, Barda, Beylegan etc existed in Muslim times as well and in fact, they exist even now. Grandmaster 18:10, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Whether some cities pre-dating Muslim invasions existed after or not has nothing to do with this article.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 18:14, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

We have a relaible source equating Paytakaran to Beylegan. [12] Also, what in your opinion happened to Paytakaran after the Arab invasion? Did it vanish without a trace, and no ruins remain? Grandmaster 18:55, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Iranica talks about the city not the province. It says the town of... You have never produced a source that explicitly equates the Armenian province Paytakaran with Beylagan, not one.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 19:03, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Paytakaran was both city and province. The Albanian (and sometimes Armenian) province Paytakaran disappears in Muslim era, but the city remains to this day. The ruins of the ancient city are located in 15 km from the modern one. Grandmaster 19:24, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

It was the city of Paytakaran that later came to be known as Beylagan according to some sources. We could care less about that. You have no sources that say the province of Paytakaran came to be known as Beylagan. You have a source that says the city of Beylagan used to be known as Paytakaran that's it. We don't care about the city, this article is not about the city. Also Paytakaran was never an Albanian province. It incorporated into the Sassanid Marzpanate of Albania only.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 19:38, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Check Strabo: To the country of the Albanians belongs also the territory called Caspiane. Grandmaster 19:47, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

You skipped the Beylagan matter. Are you finally dropping that? One at a time. Once you cease bringing up the city we will then dicuss Strabo's quote in a new section.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 19:56, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't want this discussion to continue without a mediator, as it can go on endlessly, and if Fadix is so sure that he is right, he's got no reason to be affraid of mediation. Grandmaster 18:58, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Nobody is putting a gun to your head. -- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 19:03, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I am afraid up my a. Look man, it is an article about an Armenian Province, you lose RIGHT THERE! It is not a mediation that will change anything unless you stop POV pushing. A mediator will come and suggest that both party discuss, a mediator WILL NOT unforce anything. While one side is obviously wrong, they will take no position at all. I know you have all the time in the world to waste other contributors time and going after a mediation, and hit, hit and hit, until the other is borred. Paytakaran is the Armenian province, the word in English comes from the Armenian province name. What THE HELL does a town (Baylegan) to do WITH AN ARMENIAN PROVINCE? A town which existed AFTER the fall of that province? Now, answer this question please. Fad (ix) 19:24, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Looks like you have no idea what is being debated here. Tigran and Eupator claim that Paytakaran was not the province of Caucasian Albania. I provided many sources stating otherwise. Now if you support their claim, then we need a mediator to help achieve a consensus. As for the city, the city of Paytakaran was the center of the province of the same name. It existed as Beylegan in Muslim times. It was mentioned in the article, but you reverted my edit without reading. Grandmaster 19:31, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Could not have been the same province, the delimitation was chosen by Armenia, it must have been a hell of a coincidences that both were the same. As for your claimed city. You are wrong, I repeat, Baylegan is not Paytakaran, even in Armenian, the term Baylegan was used, it was loaned from Arabic, while Paytakaran was used to refer to a specific province and was not a loan. Both are different. Also: If there was a disputed province of ancient Armenia, it was Utik (which contained the town of Partav, at one time Caucasian Albania's capital, and the southern valley of the Kura), and not Artsakh, the more mountainous region corresponding to Karabakh and Shahumianovsk today. Following the partition of Armenia in AD 384, Artsakh, Utik and Paytakaran became part of the Sasanid Persian province of Arran (or Albania), a proportion of the people remained Armenian, and the local monarch remained a member of the Arsacid dynasty, a kinsman of the dynasty that had ruled Armenia since AD 53. (Transcaucasian Boundariescby Suzanne Goldenberg, Richard Schofield, John F. R. Wright; UCL Press, 1996, p.91). Paytakaran was the Armenian province, this is the only thing which is clear, and this article was obviously created to treat that. Fad (ix) 19:59, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Check Strabo. Caspiane was the province of Albania. I’m not saying that it was not the province of Armenia, if you checked my edits I never removed that statement from the article, but it also was the province of Albania. According to Strabo, king Artaxias conquered Caspiane from Medes, so it was not originally the Armenian province. Its population was not Armenian, originally it was populated by caspies, and then by people called parcies (check Buzand, the quote is available above). According to the book edited by R. Hovanissian, Paytakaran was a completely alien land to Armenia:

Paytakaran, a completely alien land, left the Armenian orbit in 387, as did Korjaik, originally the kingdom of Gordyene, a foreign state that had belonged to Armenia for only about 250 years and whose territory was completely Kurdish in population even before the deportations of 1915.

P 16, Robert. H. Hewsen. Historical Geography

The Armenian People From Ancient To Modern Times: The Dynastic Periods: From Antiquity to the Fourteenth Century. ISBN 0312101694

Also, the article from Iranica clearly states that the city of Beylegan was the same as the city of Paytakaran. That’s what my edit said with the reference to that source. Grandmaster 20:14, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

You are again ignoring the guideline about geographic places. A Constantinople article isen't about the current city of modern Turkey. First, Albania is still considered by many scholars as not more than a geographical land, much like Anatolia is not a state or a country. Van is in Anatolia, it does not mean that it is not in Turkey. Also, I told you, Caspian is not Paytakaran, first, it should be documented that both maps coincide, which you can not do. Even if that was the cases, both will still not be the same. Many still remember the unencyclopedic matter by which Constantinople and Istanbul were merged, but this is not excusable anymore, since that decision was taken before the guideline about geographic places. Paytakaran is only the Armenian province, you are an editor of the Erivan Khanate, are you not? Why this double standard? Shall I add on the Khanate article, Erepuni and starting to talk about that city? The sources are contradictory, unlike what you say, there seem to be problems on the terms used, and I have sourced this from an authority about the matter(Minorsky), in he relate to a correspondence with another authority and about how he isen't convinced that they are the same. All those are not clear, one thing is clear though, is that Paytakaran was called by Armenians, written from Armenian, and the English version comes from that Armenian word. This article should cover the Armenian province, period. Fad (ix) 20:45, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I have yet to see a quote from Minorski supporting your views. And also, as I said many times before, Paytakaran was both city and province, and the city existed in Islamic era, while the province did not. I hope you are not going to deny that the center of the province called Paytakaran was the city called Paytakaran? Also, you removed the statement that Paytakaran was the province of Albania, do you deny that Caspiane is the same as Paytakaran? Tigran and Eupator included in the article the statement that Caspiane is the same as Paytakaran, and I agreed with it, because it is supported by many sources, including neutral and Armenian ones. Parishan quoted a source stating that Caspiane was the same as Paytakaran:

World History Encyclopædia, v. 2. Moscow: Mysl Publ., 1956: Caspiene, with its capital in Paytakaran, was also under the Armenian dominance...

Also, I refer you to Pawstos Buzand:

О каспах.

Потом спарапет Мушег жестоко отомстил стране парсиев [7] и городу Пайтакарану, ибо жители этой страны отложились от армянского царя и изменили ему. Спарапет-полководец Мушег, прибыв туда, многих из них казнил, отрубив головы, многих взял в плен, а остальных обложил данью, взял у них заложников и там оставил правительственных чиновников.

[7] Из этого места мы узнаем, что в стране Каспк (Каспиана античных авторов) и в этот период жило упоминаемое Страбоном племя парсиев или паррасиев (С. Т. Еремян).

About Caspis

Then sparapet Musheg took cruel revenge on the country of parcies and the city of Paytakaran, because the people of that country broke away from the Armenian king and betrayed him.

The footnote:

From this place we learn that the country of Kaspk (Caspiane of antique authors) was populated at that time by the tribe of Parsies or parracies, mentioned by Starbo. [13]

And Strabo says that Caspiane belonged to Albania. So it was an Albanian province, and further denial is pointless. Grandmaster 12:46, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

NO! Movses writes the plain of Balasajan Brosset's manuscript Balakan (Baghacan) (Brosset, I, p. 96, n. 96.). While in his paper (A Neglected Passage in the "History of the Caucasian Albanians" Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London, Vol. 19, No. 3 (1957), pp. 456-468) Dowsett equal them he object it while quoting Minorsky. This is what Minorsky writes:

Abdul-Asad Step'annos's origin is unknown, though the fact is interesting that he invoked Babak's help against those of Balak (or Balakan). I am tempted to connect this name with Arabic Baylaqan, i.e. the town which lay in the present-day Mil steppe on the road from Varthan (now Altan, on the southern Bank of the Araxes) to Barda'a (Partav). It had a very mixed population, known for its turbulence. I feel the strength of C. Dowsett's objection when he writes to me that 'it is rather unexpected to find an Arabic form of the name in Armenian, when they have their own P'aytakaran.' However, I am not quite convinced of the philological identity of P'aytakaran with Baylaqan (Belakan), of which the former is the name of the province and the latter primarily the name of the town (though occasionally referring to its district). (Caucasica IV, V. Minorsky, Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London, Vol. 15, No. 3. (1953))

So, I say no, to your claim. It is clear that Baylakan IS NOT Paytakaran.

Starbo, now coming to him. This is what he wrote: Armenian swallowed three Median provinces, Caspiane, Faunitis, and Basoropeda.

Does he say Albania? NO! You have yet to document that a nation called Albania had existed at those times. You have yet to explain how so, while Starbo talks about Albania, he still includes locations in Albania and other Empires, like Armenia or those of Medes? He talks about 26 tribes, having each their principality, in a region called Albania. Period.

For the rest, Caspiane is an entity by itself, Paytakaran is another entity, Paytakaran refers to the Armenian province, period. Oh and, do explain us why you have added the Azeris term in the lead? Fad (ix) 19:02, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Minorski is not the only authority in this area, plus he does not rule out the possibility that Paytakaran is the same as Beylegan. Check Iranica, Bosworth says that they are the same city. Also, if those two are two different cities at the same place, where are the ruins of Paytakaran? Something should have remained in the Mil steppe. And I cited sources stating that Caspiane = Paytakaran. You cited none saying the opposite. Check Buzand, Paytakaran was in the country of Caspians. Also, Strabo says that Caspiane belongs to Albanians, not Albania. It was a country, check the article in Iranica. Grandmaster 19:13, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Strabo says that Artaxias (who lived a couple of hundred years before the times of Strabo), conquered Caspiane from Medes, so Caspiane was not originally an Armenian province. But at the times of Strabo it was part of Albania, as he says that Caspiane belongs to Albanians, i.e. Armenia lost it the same way as it gained it. Grandmaster 19:17, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

And Azeri name in the lead is justified, as Beylegan is a city in modern Azerbaijan. Grandmaster 19:19, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Minorski was the most cited Western author on Paytakaran, other authors cite authors who have cited him for the most part. I'd qualify him as a key figure there. Paytakaran is the name of the Armenian province, Beylegan is the town which become the city, at most it was the district, and it acquired that name after the fall of the province. Even in Armenian, they used the Arabic term to refer to that town and not Paytakaran, which is used to refer to the province. This article is not about a city in Azerbaijan, it is about an Armenian province, all this talk is worthless intellectual masturbation, probably again initiated by Adil throwing in, irrelevencies in Armenian related articles, and you as usual comming to his defense. Belonging to people doesn't mean anything at all, a province can not exist if there is no country. You assume that Caspiene was to Albania because of a word regarding Albanians, and now you throw back Albanians. Eastern Turkey has large sections, like Van with a majority Kurdish population, does it make Anatolia belonging to the Kurds? or to Turkey? Also, I'd work on comprehention if I were you, so to not force other interlocurers to repeat themselves again and again. Constantinople does not equal Istanbul, it is a historic city. If you want to creat an article about Caspiane, go ahead, do so, this article is about Paytakaran, which was an Armenian province, how hard is this for you to understand? Fad (ix) 21:32, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Minorski is not the only authoritative source. Bosworth is one of the leading experts on the history of Iran, and his opinion cannot be disregarded. As for the rest, Caspiane = Paytakaran, check sources that I quoted. You only see what you want to see, completely ignoring the sources that don’t suite your position. Check Buzand, the reference is available here. And Albania was a country, check the quotes:

Strabo:

To the country of the Albanians belongs also the territory called Caspiane, which was named after the Caspian tribe, as was also the sea; but the tribe has now disappeared. [14]

Article from Iranica about the Caspies. It says, inter alia:

Herodotus, Strabo, and other classical authors repeatedly mention the Caspians but do not seem to know much about them; they are grouped with other inhabitants of the southern shore of the Caspian Sea, like the Amardi, Anariacae, Cadusii (q.v.), Albani, and Vitii (Eratosthenes apud Strabo, 11.8.8), and their land (Kaspiane) is said to be part of Albania (Theophanes Mytilenaeus apud Strabo, 11.4.5). Whether or not they belonged to the Median empire is not clear. According to Herodotus (3.92.2), they, together with the Pausicae, Pantimathi, and Daritae, were included in the eleventh nomos of the Achaemenid empire under Darius I. This region later was attached to Media Atropatene and Albania in turn. [15]

Another quote:

Pompey then rearranged the political geography of the east. The exact details of the changes and their chronology are not always clear. Some were changed after Pompey and the young Tigranes fell out and after Parthian intervention. But the upshot was that by 59 BC Syria and Phoenicia had passed to Rome, Sophene to Cappadocia, and Adiabene to Parthia. Lesser Armenia went, probably, to Brogitarus, son-in-law of Deiotarus king of Galatia, and Caspiane to the Albanians.

A. E. Redgate. The Armenians (Peoples of Europe) ISBN-10: 0631220372

Moses Kalankatuatsi:

А после смерти Трдата некий Санатрук воцарился в Алуанке в городе Пайтакаране и восстал против армян. [16]

After the death of Trdat, some Sanatruk became a king in Albania (Aluank) in the city of Paytakaran and revolted against Armenians.

Moses Khorenatsi:

Также Страна касбов²³⁵ по этому поводу отложилась от нашего царя. Поэтому Арташес посылает на них Смбата со всей армянской ратью и сам сопровождает их в течение семи дней. Смбат, придя туда, усмиряет всех, а Страну касбов разоряет и уводит в Армению пленных больше, чем из Артаза, и с ними их царя Зардманоса.

235 Страна касбов — область низовьев Куры и Аракса (впадавших в древности в Каспийское море порознь), примыкающая к Каспийскому морю; страна Каспиана, упоминаемая Страбоном в связи с завоеваниями армянского царя Арташеса I.

The Country of kasbs also broke away from our king for the same reason. Therefore Artashes sent against them Smbat with the whole Armenian army and personally accompanied them for seven days. Upon arrival there Smbat pacified everyone, plundered the Country of kasbs and took away to Armenia more prisoners than were taken from Artaz, and their king Zardmanos was among them.

Footnote: The country of kasbs – the area of the lower courses of Kura and Araks (which in ancient times flowed into the Caspian sea separately), adjacent to the Caspian sea; the country of Caspiane, mentioned by Strabo in connection with the conquests of the Armenian king Artashes I. [17]

Pawstos Buzand:

О каспах.

Потом спарапет Мушег жестоко отомстил стране парсиев [7] и городу Пайтакарану, ибо жители этой страны отложились от армянского царя и изменили ему. Спарапет-полководец Мушег, прибыв туда, многих из них казнил, отрубив головы, многих взял в плен, а остальных обложил данью, взял у них заложников и там оставил правительственных чиновников.

[7] Из этого места мы узнаем, что в стране Каспк (Каспиана античных авторов) и в этот период жило упоминаемое Страбоном племя парсиев или паррасиев (С. Т. Еремян).

About Caspis

Then sparapet Musheg took cruel revenge on the country of parcies and the city of Paytakaran, because the people of that country broke away from the Armenian king and betrayed him.

The footnote:

From this place we learn that the country of Kaspk (Caspiane of antique authors) was populated at that time by the tribe of Parsies or Parracies, mentioned by Starbo. [18]

Once again I suggest we try mediation, maybe a third party will help us reach a consensus. I don’t understand why are you so reluctant to do so, if you are so sure that you are right. Grandmaster 09:01, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Gm, you are essentially spamming at this point. Cut that out, you have the habit of posting long quotes on pretty much every single article you initiate an edit war. This clutters up the page, especially quotes that are already here. The Strabo quote is not a problem at all, it can be said that according to Strabo Artaxias took Caspiane (whatever that is, it's not exactly the same as Paytakaran, we don't know that) from the MEDES, later Strabo says Caspiane which was named after an extinct tribe belonged to the Albanians. This will be said in the person of Strabo! Pompey's arrangement goes 100% against your pov! Because Paytakaran was under Tigran's domain after he was defeated by Pompey. That means that Caspiane is not the same as Paytakaran. Tigranes did not lose an inch of Greater Armenia after he signed the treaty with Pompey, Paytakaran was part of Greater Armenia thus Paytakaran is not the same as Caspiane. Moreoever, the Caspi tribe populated the regions North of Paytakaran.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 18:34, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh boy, the spamming is back. Nothing in the above quote has anything to do with my answer. As for the claimed city of Paytakaran, the Kalankatuatsi manuscript does not use that term, this is in its translation with an assumption. Again, Paytakaran is the Armenian province, period, if anything you will embarass yourself in a mediation process, but go ahead be our guest. Fad (ix) 19:11, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

If you think that I will embarrass myself, why do you refuse mediation? And also, Buzand talk about the country of parcies and city of Paytakaran, and the chapter is called “about kasps”, what in your opinion he refers to? The footnote explains that pretty clear, and it is an Armenian source. Paytakaran was also the province of Albania, it is obvious. As for your statement that “Paytakaran was under Tigran's domain after he was defeated by Pompey”, please cite your sources. I cited mine. And mind civility too. Grandmaster 11:34, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Kalankatuatsi was translated by an Armenian scholar, you may doubt his competence all you want, but he has no reason to distort the source, and Kalankatuatsi says: After the death of Trdat, some Sanatruk became a king in Aluank in the city of Paytakaran and revolted against Armenians. Grandmaster 11:38, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Also, even pro-Armenian sources like Hewsen accept that Paytakaran was a “completely alien land” to Armenia, check the above quote. Grandmaster 11:40, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't matter who translated him, he dosen't use the same word, that was the main subject of the controversy, you are killing the controversy in the Academia, you are not a scholar, unless you have published something about it and are an authority, which should be confirmed by you giving your informations, you have absolutly no authority in claiming what is what. You can only refer to sources. As for your quote: Paytakaran, a completely alien land, left the Armenian orbit in 387, as did Korjaik, originally the kingdom of Gordyene, a foreign state that had belonged to Armenia for only about 250 years and whose territory was completely Kurdish in population even before the deportations of 1915.

You are interpreting that quotation, it says it was alien, I don't see where it say alien to Armenia. For the population he only covers Korjaik, which from his wording is part of current republic of Turkey. There was only one Paytakaran, one Paytakaran writen Paytakaran in Armenian, all the other theories are hypotheses, which you obstinently highlight to dissolve the article. And I believe I already told above my opinion about mediation, but for someone who thinks this is a war, and that mediators will act as arbitrators, there is nothing I will say that will change anything. Fad (ix) 17:08, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

You can deny as much as you want, but it is obvious to everyone that you are simply trying to suppress the information that is inconvenient to you. And your refusal to get neutral people involved in this dispute speaks for itself. Another source for you:

Кроме этого, в зависимости от Армении находилась и Каспиана, центр которой был в Пайтакаране и правители которой считали себя Аршакидами. На протяжении IV в. все эти области отпали от Армении, а после смерти Тиридата III некто Санатрук присвоил себе корону, овладел Пайтакараном и заявил о захвате всей Армении. Правители Пайтакарана опирались на помощь Сасанидов и позднее помогали Шапуру II в войнах с Арменией. В 60-х годах IV в. от Армении отложились и другие албанские земли, которые также попали под влияние персов.

Всемирная история. Энциклопедия. Том 2. [19]

Caspiane, which had its center in Paytakaran and the rulers of which considered themselves Arsacids, was also under the Armenian dominion. During the IVth century all these regions broke away from Armenia, and after the death of Tiridat III some Sanatruk declared himself a king, took control of Paytakaran and announced the conquest of the whole Armenia. The rulers of Paytakaran relied on the help of Sasanians and later assisted Shapur II during the wars with Armenia.

The World Encyclopedia, Volume II.

Grandmaster 06:05, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Compare it with the country of Kaspk and the city of Paytakaran, mentioned by Buzand. Also, according to Hewsen, Paytakaran was an alien land to Armenia, which orbit it left for good in 387, as is obvious from the quote. What else it could be alien to? The planet Earth? Grandmaster 06:11, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

The above quote support what I have been saying and contradict you. It says which had its center in Patakaran, where does it say that Paytakaran equal Caspiane? As for Hawsen, I just commented about this above, he does not say alien to Armenia, it says it was an alien land, and unlike what you claim regarding its population, he was commenting about Korjaik. As for denial, I am not denying anything at all. The authors have written the original term, and both are clearly different, never had they written the city as Paytakaran, Paytakaran was used to refer to the Armenian province. Caspiane is Caspiane, Paytakaran is Paytakaran. This is only what is obvious and which is not controversial. Fad (ix) 17:04, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

The current version of the article was written by Tigran and Eupator and there was a consensus among all the editors that Caspiane = Paytakaran. You are the only one who says that it is not so. You claim that there were two different provinces with the center in the same city of Paytakaran. How is that possible? Please cite your sources, so far you have not done so. Also, Paytakaran was both city and province, you seem to agree that the city was part of Albania, if so then how come the rest of the province was not part of Albania? The sources agree that the province was not populated by Armenians, and was just under the Armenian dominion. The local population rebelled against the Armenian rule, in punishment for which it was ruined and plundered by Armenians, and eventually this alien land broke away from Armenia and became part of the kingdom of Albania, which became the Persian marzpandom only in 457 [20], while Paytakaran was attached to Albania in 387. This is what the sources say. Despite that you deny the obvious facts and do not allow third party editors to mediate the issue. Grandmaster 18:21, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Also check this article by Hewsen:

BAGAWAN (Baguan or Ateshi Bagawan), a district of the land of Kaspiane (Arm. Kaspk, later Paytakaran) lying along the right bank of the Araxes river and corresponding to the northeastern part of Iranian Azerbaijan. [21]

I think this should be the end of the dispute. Grandmaster 19:45, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Cite MY SOURCE??? Up to now, I haven't seen you ever providing any sources which support what you claim. I don't even have and should not have to claim there were two different provinces, I don't even have to do that. Paytakaran etymology is Armenian, that term was coined to refer to the province, it never was used ever to refer to anything other than the Armenian province. You can shout the term fact all you want or claim you have proved, I am still waiting you to document that. You have not done so. When someone refer to Paytakaran he talks about the Armenian province. When someone talk about Constantinople he talks about the Greek city and NOT Istanbul. Whatever or not both maps could be considered as carbon copy IS TOTALLY IRRELEVENT. As irrelevant as it is worthless for me to go on trying to explain you why you are totally in the wrong. But as I see the main issue here was again about "plundered by Armenians." Oh and, unlike what you claim, you haven't provided anything supporting that there was no Armenians living there. Oh and, Kaspk was Kaspk in Armenian literature, they had the term to refer to the land of Kaspiane, while it was not used interchangedly with Paytakaran. I don't know how, seriously how putting this in a more simple way for you. Do you think that "proving" that Istanbul is what became of Constantinople, spamming the entire articles talk page with such total irrelevency make any differences regarding the fact that Constantinople was a Greek city and when someone use that term he use it to refer to that? What more can I add to explain you the obvious. I really really fail to see it. How diminished my English skills may be, I doubt they are as diminished that you still don'T understand how irrelevant are the points you are trying to make so I think I will rest my case, there is no point continuing this endless circle. Fad (ix) 04:17, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

It is, in our favor. That just proves that Bagawan/Baylagan or whatever, is not the same as Paytakaran. According to some it was a city in Paytakaran according to others a district, but no source says it was ever synonymous with the province.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 20:52, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Bagawan is not Beylegan, it is a different city in the same Albanian province. I think I have proven my point, and Fadix has nothing to say, no sources, just denial of my sources. Read again:

BAGAWAN (Baguan or Ateshi Bagawan), a district of the land of Kaspiane (Arm. Kaspk, later Paytakaran) lying along the right bank of the Araxes river and corresponding to the northeastern part of Iranian Azerbaijan.

I don’t think that anyone should have difficulties with understanding of the above text, it says: land of Kaspiane (Arm. Kaspk, later Paytakaran). It clearly says that Caspiane was later called Paytakaran. There’s no way of denying it. Grandmaster 05:47, 15 January 2007 (UTC)