Talk:Seleucia ad Belum

This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Syria Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Syria, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Syria on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SyriaWikipedia:WikiProject SyriaTemplate:WikiProject SyriaSyria articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Classical Greece and Rome Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome, a group of contributors interested in Wikipedia's articles on classics. If you would like to join the WikiProject or learn how to contribute, please see our project page. If you need assistance from a classicist, please see our talk page.Classical Greece and RomeWikipedia:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeTemplate:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeClassical Greece and Rome articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Are Seleucia ad Belum and As-Suqailabiyya the same places?[edit]

The name of the village of Al-Suqaylabiyah, located just about 5km south of Apamea, goes back as well to "Seleucobelos". Could it be possible that the information in the article about Seleucia ad Belum beeing located 45 km north of Apamea is simply wrong? When I search for sites in a 50km-radius northwest of Apamea in Google Earth I do not find any settlement or site that could possibly have been Seleucia ad Belum. Also it does not seem to be the case that there is any other settlement in the area that had the name "Seleucobelos" or "Seleucopolis". Therefore the much more likely version is that both names refer to the same place. Any suggestions? Schumeru (talk) 20:13, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I might add that Orontes river is nowadays more a straightend channel. The modern Al-Suqaylabiyah is located about 7 km east of the modern Orontes, still, it is very possible that the ancient Al-Suqaylabiyah/Seleucobelos AND the ancient river were both located in the west of Apamea about 10 km northwest of Al-Suqaylabiyah's modern location. I also found a german source speaking of Seleucia ad Belum as beeing located "a short distance west of Apamea". Schumeru (talk) 20:23, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Given that your association of Seleucia and al-Suqaylabiyah is completely unsourced and unsupported by scholarly treatments as recently as 2006, it seems that we have no idea if they are the same place. Also note that you can't really WP:OR your way to discovering an ancient settlement by poking around on Google Earth and looking for modern cities. Things change. —

Llywelyn II

08:06, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sources for future article expansion[edit]

These weren't used at all for inline citations. Kindly restore them to the article once they are being used to verify specific points in the text:

Richard Talbert (2000), Barrington Atlas of the Greek and Roman World (ISBN 0-691-03169-X), p. 68.
Friedrich Heinrich Theodor Bischoff, Johann Heinrich Möller, Vergleichendes Wörterbuch der alten, mittleren und neuen Geographie, Gotha 1829, p. 906
Hazlitt, Classical Gazetteer, "Seleucia"

— $Llywelyn II$ 07:02, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Seleucopolis[edit]

Well, there's a WP:S for it in Hazlitt, but I'm not sure it's R about this. The internet knows nothing about Σελευκοπολις and its Latin existence seems to be entirely numismatic based on readings of coins that don't have anyone modern picking up on them. The only Google Scholar hit is this one (!) and just says that "Forni" conluded "Seleuco..." should be expanded "reluctantly" into Seleucopolis. But Seleucobelus actually existed and could have finished the expansion just as easily. I really think we're perpetuating an error here. — $Llywelyn II$ 11:50, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]