Talk:Kanishka's war with Parthia

This article was nominated for deletion on 23 September 2023. The result of the discussion was keep.

Military history: Asian / Middle East / South Asia / Classical C‑class

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

C

This article has been rated as C-class on the project's quality scale.

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Asian military history task force
	Middle Eastern military history task force
	South Asian military history task force
	Classical warfare task force (c. 700 BC – c. 500 AD)

Articles for creation

	This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC articles
	This article was accepted from this draft on 15 September 2023 by reviewer Timtrent (talk · contribs).

@MrHappy2020 why did you change the number of casualties when the sources states 900,000 Parthians were killed Jonharojjashi (talk) 03:24, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Because it is quite literally impossible for them to be able to both assemble and lose such a army. The parthian army only reached a size of 50k and that was against the romans their worst enemy so how did they lose 900000 soldiers in one war? MrHappy2020 (talk) 08:41, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not the parthian army many sources says 900000 parthian people were killed/massacred by Kanishka even inscriptional sources we can't change it even if it could have been exaggerated Jonharojjashi (talk) 11:43, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 7 October 2023

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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved to Kanishka's war with Parthia (non-admin closure). Jenks24 (talk) 09:44, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Second Parthian–Kushan War → Parthian–Kushan War – Per the discussion at [1], since this is a made up name. I guess this is the best name we got. --HistoryofIran (talk) 12:49, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom पाटलिपुत्र (Pataliputra) (talk) 14:46, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Srnec (talk) 17:16, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Prefer Kanishka's war with Parthia as suggested by User:Srnec in the AfD, since it anchors the subject to the person of Kanishka just like the single source attesting it does. The absence of contemporary historical records in either of the puported belligerent polities makes it impossible to state that this conflict isn't just a notable legend, a Buddhist morality tale to hype their great patron Kanishka, but during research I became increasingly convinced that was the case.

To my knowledge, there are no sources that use the term "Parthian–Kushan war" or "Kushan–Parthian war", although most secondary sources do treat it as a possible historical incident in central Asian politics, delta the casualty figures. Most legends grow from a germ of truth. For convenience, I also weakly support the proposed title. Folly Mox (talk) 17:52, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kanishka's war with Parthia also sounds good to me, I wouldn't oppose that. --HistoryofIran (talk) 18:07, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fine with me too. Srnec (talk) 21:11, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral or Support sensible names. I accepted this at AFC and I trusted the suggested name. Please consider while moving whether there was a First Fooian War, and why this was considered to be the second one by the submitting editor. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 18:28, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thorley 1979 (Wikipedia Library link), which is fairly sanguine on the historicity of the event, postulates a prior conflict. Folly Mox (talk) 18:58, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with "second" is that it implies precisely one prior war. But if we are very unsure how many wars there were, if any, we should never use "second" unless reliable sources explicitly describe it as such. It isn't acceptable in a descriptive title otherwise. Srnec (talk) 21:11, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Notes

Source 101 (p. 117) in Harry Falk ed. Kushan Histories: Literary Sources and Selected Papers from a Symposium at Berlin (Verlag; 2015); to be read with the disclaimer in p. 30.
Raoul McLaughlin is not a RS.
In any case, this event does not deserve a separate article.

TrangaBellam (talk) 14:36, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not to mention that whoever wrote the article lacked any and all cognizance about the ethico-moral framework of the text and its intriguing use of recurring Buddhist motifs to push back against the hegemonic reconstructions of Kanishka's life and afterlives. TrangaBellam (talk) 14:51, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And if I am not mis-remembering details, the text also has a segment on how Kanishka I was asphyixiated to death. Death of Kanishka I is a redlink ... <sarcasm>TrangaBellam (talk) 14:53, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

whoever wrote the article Not how Wikipedia works. Srnec (talk) 15:03, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, editors are responsible for the sources they use (and don't use). I am hardly proposing that we engage in original research. Ofcourse, if you start by looking for sources that support some kind of a historical reading, you will be missing the forest for the trees. Levivich's dictum (which used to be on his u/p) comes to my mind - the way to write a sensible article is to not arrive at a conclusion and dig for sources but rather the other way round. In any case, I will create an article about the text and how scholars read it. TrangaBellam (talk) 15:16, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My point was that no single editor wrote the article. I contributed, but I didn't add the citations you are questioning. By 'text', do you mean Fu fazang yinyuan zhuan? Srnec (talk) 15:45, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. TrangaBellam (talk) 18:53, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]