Talk:Argead dynasty

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Comments

The Argeads origin is Argos according to Herodotus. (and I'm not the anonymous editor). MATIA 11:45, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

αι ή οι?

αι Αργεαδαι ειναι ή οι Αργεαδαι? something about the native Greek terms. CuteHappyBrute (talk) 03:44, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Οι Αργεάδαι. - Sthenel (talk) 09:45, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An Argead belif not from Greek historiography

I disagree with FuterPerfect’ addition.

“According to ancient Greek historiography they were a Greek noble family that traced its legendary origins to Argos in southern Greece”

The above is a mistake.
Argeads considered themselves to be Greek and the Greek historiography simply confirmed it!The most important fact to this is the archaeological discoveries.
I am adding as a reference a quote from Andronicus book which is quite clear of what the royal family belived.

Manolis Andronikos “Vergina, the royal Tombs” Ekdotiki Athinon. The palace of Agai page 38.Inscreption found in the Tholo of the palace . “ Η επιγραφή αυτή είναι : «ΗΡΑΚΛΗΙ ΠΑΤΡΩΙΩΙ», που σημαίνει στον «Πατρώο Ηρακλή», στον Ηρακλή δηλαδή που ήταν γενάρχης της βασιλικής οικογένειας των Μακεδόνων.” {“ the inscription is “ΗΡΑΚΛΗΙ ΠΑΤΡΩΙΩΙ” which means “ father (more properly ancestor) Hercules” dedicated to Hercules who was the ancestor of the Royal family of the Macedonians”}.

The above inscription is more than enough to confirm that the Argeads had as a strong belief that they were Greeks from Argos offspring of Hercules.
I can’t recall any historian who has actually doubt the Greek origin of the Argead Dynasty.
(It is of course a legendary descent. But that was common in every Greek noble family. Almost all of them had some short of legendary descent.)
Seleukosa (talk) 00:35, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If someone disagrees it is better to contribute here in the talk page. Removing cited material without discussing it in the talk page (and sarcastic and ironic comments) is unacceptable. Seleukosa (talk) 15:40, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No one disagrees, hence why NOTHING (well, one source is enough) was removed. Did you see the summary about "first things first", though? What unbelievable pigheadedness. 3rdAlcove (talk) 16:48, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your reverts had as a result the disappearing of 3 references and the completely alteration of the text. This is what you think is nothing??
Read also the above passage about the inscription in Agea and the Greek historiography which you failed to notice it (and you removed it also). My main point here is the obvious fact that the Argead were not claimed as Greeks by the Greek historiography BUT they themselves claimed so! Is this not obvious from the source from Adronicus excavations?
Your insulting remarks should be addressed by an administrator since you obviously violating wikipedia rules.
“Wikipedia has a code of conduct: Respect your fellow Wikipedians even when you may not agree with them. Be civil. Avoid conflicts of interest, personal attacks or sweeping generalizations.”

You should apologize immediately. Don’t think that I will reply back. And I thought that you were a civilized editor. Pity.

Seleukosa (talk) 17:38, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The User:3rdAlcove has a long history of such edits in all the articles related to theAncient Macedonians. The word "legendary" was put without any source, to dispute the Greek origin of the family and make it seem like a fairy tale. - Sthenel (talk) 18:01, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunetelly the worst is the insulting remarks. I am more than willing to discuss everything.

What also puzzles me is the choice to ignore the archaeological discoveries. The inscription alone (“ΗΡΑΚΛΗΙ ΠΑΤΡΩΙΩΙ”) is a strong prove that the descent from Argos was not supported (or ivented) by “Greek historiography” but it was a strong belief by the Argeads.

Seleukosa (talk) 18:11, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, speaking of "unbelievable pigheadedness" is not the best expression of politeness. Probably the
opposite. And who says that we cannot have more than one citation in a row. Is this a new policy in Wikipedia?--Yannismarou (talk) 18:23, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

What this user did is totally POV. - Sthenel (talk) 18:25, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusion: The Argeads were Greek. 3rdAlcove (talk) 19:33, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Has anyone question that? I dont think that anyone ever desputed the Greek origin of the Argeads. It is a general accepted fact. As the references sugest.
No doubt that origin from Hercules was a legend. But that was common in that time period.
(I would like to see an apology for the "unbelievable pigheadedness")
Seleukosa (talk) 19:41, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(Good for you.) 3rdAlcove (talk) 19:46, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I thought that the insults was an unfortunate moment. As it seems it wasn’t. Pity.Seleukosa (talk) 20:04, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree Seleukosa, but when credible arguments don't exist, insults take their place! N.Panamevris (talk) 03:20, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strabo

.....F means "fragments".... please, next time you do not understand how to look for a source ask for advice... GK1973 (talk) 09:18, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article about Argeads was written after a long debate (read above). You want to add information about Strabo but you are making mistakes! First of all you have misunderstood how we use sources in wikipedia!
Read how wikipedia treats sources:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:CITE
"Articles should rely on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. This means that we only publish the opinions of reliable authors, and not the opinions of Wikipedians who have read and interpreted primary source material for themselves"
Further mistakes you do:
b) What you adding doesn’t fit in the opening paragraph but in the origin section of the article. (Just after: “According to Thucydides...” were you can add : “ according to Strabo…”)
a) You don’t provide a quote from the source and unless you can provide it, is considered unverifiable.
As a matter of fact I have checked your source. Unfortunately there isn’t any paragraph in Strabo that supports what you say! Have a look for your self
"STRABO GEOGRAPHY

Book VII, Fragments 11 What is now called Macedonia was in earlier times called Emathia. And it took its present name from Macedon, one of its early chieftains. And there was also a city Emathia close to the sea. Now a part of this country was taken and held by certain of the Epeirotes and the Illyrians, but most of it by the Bottiaei and the Thracians. The Bottiaei came from Crete originally, so it is said, along with Botton as chieftain. As for the Thracians, the Pieres inhabited Pieria and the region about Olympus; the Paeones, the region on both sides of the Axius River, which on that account is called Amphaxitis; the Edoni and Bisaltae, the rest of the country as far as the Strymon. Of these two peoples the latter are called Bisaltae alone, whereas a part of the Edoni are called Mygdones, a part Edones, and a part Sithones. But of all these tribes the Argeadae, as they are called, established themselves as masters, and also the Chalcidians of Euboea; for the Chalcidians of Euboea also came over to the country of the Sithones and jointly peopled about thirty cities in it, although later on the majority of them were ejected and came together into one city, Olynthus; and they were named the Thracian Chalcidians. 11a The ethnic of Botteia is spelled with the i, according to Strabo in his Seventh Boat. And the city is called after Botton the Cretan."

Actually you are interpreting a primary source and I don’t think that it really adds anything!
Seleukosa (talk) 21:06, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

??? I really do not understand your problem... Strabo says that there was a hellenic Macedonian tribe of Argeade and you are deeming it improper to mention it where it was before you erased it? And then you are commenting on "reverting"? This is most inappropriate of you. You supposedly deleted this important info because the reference was supposedly wrong. I reverted you because it was correct and guided you to the correct place in Strabo's work. You found the text, I commend you on that, but you apparently did not read it (so I bolded it to make it easier...)and now you don't want this iformation in because it is given in a primary source? Is Strabo not a respectable, acknowledged third party? As for whether it belongs where I inserted it, we can discuss it. I disagree but we can discuss it. The same applies to the using of sources. Now really.... didn't you read the text before posting it here? GK1973 (talk) 13:56, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As for quoting the source, this is of course something we do NOT usually do in wikipedia, unless there is real reason to. This text of Strabo is quite siple and adds nothing apart from what I have already written.

As for the placement, this info is correctly given in the first paragraph, since it gves the important aditional (disambiguating) information that it was not just the royal family but also the whole clan that bore the name "Argead", a common mistake made by many. The text concentrates on the dynasty and the whole prologue is about the dynasty anyways, so there are no problems of possible mix ups.

Now.. your problem also lies with the addition of a text which explains that the geneology of the Argeads was fully accepted by both Grek and Roman historians. This is to add to the veracity of this myth, which although a myth to us was fully recognized as truth regardless what Badian or Borza propose in their books. I guess that in your opinion this is superfluous, since not mentioning it makes it even more assertive, but the debate to the veracity of the myth exists and this is the main argument as to why one should give it credit and not discard it as "propaganda" as the aforementioned historians have.

We can and will discuss this matter, but it is inappropriate to first impose your edits and then demand a discussion. We have to first come to an agreement and then change the pre-existing text. So, I am sorry for reverting you again, but this is how we should proceed with any forthcoming edits of the sort. Yet, I am open for discussion. Please, give your arguments regarding both points of your edits. GK1973 (talk) 14:13, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am surprised you failed to see why your edit was deleted in the first place! Allow me to repeat it: "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. This means that we only publish the opinions of reliable authors and not the opinions of Wikipedians who have read and interpreted primary source material for themselves".
Your edits also completely altered the meaning of the opening paragraph and gives the impression that Argeads were mainly a clan and not the royal house of Macedon.
If you can find a secondary source then you can add it! But as long as you keep adding your interpretation of a source I will keep deleting it.
You didn’t even bother to check and see how much I have contributed in this article. I took personal care to add the sources you see and I have protected this article from vandalism. I can understand that you mean well but your changes mess up the article than benefit it.
Seleukosa (talk) 00:05, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am also surprized at your insistence on such arguments...

What meaning was altered by the addition of Strabo's comment? In no way was the weight shifted to the clan. As for your contribution to the article, it is none of my business and actually your using it as an argument is very improper, since this is in no way an excuse for appropriating the content. Allow me to summarize the "reasons" of this dispute.

1. You thought that the text was wrongly referenced. - It was not. You had just failed to correctly interepret the reference. 2. You dismiss any "ancient" sources not given as an interpretion of a conemporary historian. - Yet, you have no problem with presenting Herodotus' and Thucidides' accounts sans any third party supporting references just some lines below (and I don't have problems with those, but it seems to me that you should)... 3. You demand that a contemporary source be found on the said matter, because you honestly disagree with "my" interpretation of Strabo's words, supporting that there was no Argead tribe ruled by the Argeads. - If you doubt that information, why don't you ask for more sources straightforwardly and play with "rules" and words? Just say you think this info is wrong... 4. You thin it changes the meaning of the introduction. - I just disagree. It is quite clear in the text that the Argead dynasty is the central topic, but also lets the reader know that their clan was, according to Strabo, also called Argead, an info which is very important. 5. You again have not made any comments as to the second part of your edits which is also strange... - Again what is the problem with mentioning that this tale/myth/legend/truth was not questioned by any ancient?

Am I correct? Is this too difficult for you to put in words, so that we can discuss the issue? Please address all these matters and should you be concerned about each one's history here, I would advise to take a look into my edits as well before so easily dismissing my contributions to Wikipedia, although we should not, according to my opinion, enter such "atropous". GK1973 (talk) 09:58, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

on the fly refs regarding the Argead tribe

http://books.google.com/books?id=4jRoAAAAMAAJ&q=%22Argead+tribe%22&dq=%22Argead+tribe%22&hl=el

"Alexander, the Ambiguity of Greatness", Guy McLean Rogers, p316

"According to Strabo, 7. 1 1 ff., the Argeadae were the tribe who were able to make themselves supreme in early Emathia, ..."

I am sorry I do not have diect access to my bibliography right now, but 2 refs from Googlebooks should be a good start. Do you have any refs as to a different interpretation of Strabo's words or some historian who criticises the said extract? GK1973 (talk) 11:16, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Finally a proper reference! Yes this can be added! I insist that this should be in the origin section were Herodotus and Thucydides accounts are (were they are referenced and not interpreted).
:However we can not add -because of the above source- something like “ruling house of the Macedonian clan also known as Argeadae”. I think more correct would be to add this information as it was stated in the source you provided. I‘ve already added it in the origin part just like all other references from ancient writers. If you agree we can keep it there.
As for the Greek and Roman historiography I do know that no one from antiquity had ever doubt the Argeads origin. I do have concerns in adding it again because of lack of sources to back it up. If we keep it there it would be very easy for any editor to challenge it and remove it. I think it is better to keep it out for the moment unless there is a credible source that emphasizes on acceptance from “all writers”.
Seleukosa (talk) 13:15, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not everything should or can be as dilligently referenced. Many of us Wikipedians, truly interested in the articles we are contributing to, are quite well versed in what we are writing. References should be provided but no coherent text can be produced by patching up words already witten by certain individuals. Especially regarding antiquity,all historians are first and foremost citing/interpreting/criticizing the ancient sources. The existence of the Argead clan is well documented in contemporary sources (there are many more prominent sources referring to it, I just quick searched the internet for something quick), so I never thought that there would be any disagreement as to the veracity of Strabo's information, who is the primary source on this info. It is as if having to cite a modern historian to write that the Greeks beat the Persians at Marathon... Yet, I agree that whenever a dispute arises, modern sources should also be provided. My problem was only that you did not directly dispute the info given but chose to be too diplomatic and "rule-abiding" for me to understand your objections. No problem, pal...

Nevertheless, your addition seems out of place. This section is about the ruling House of the Argead clan origins, not about the clan, nor the clan's origins. By adding the info there and in such a manner it is as if Strabo disagrees with the existence of the Argead family, which he does not. He just adds that the clan over which the Argeads/Temenids ruled was called Argead too. You see, the Macedonians were not a single tribe but many different tribes as were the Hepirotans, the Boeotians etc. We know many Macedonian tribes' names and the Argeads are just one of those. They should be given their own article (I might do that later this month). This is why I gave that info in the opening paragraph in a subtle (according to me) way. Without an entry to disambiguate between the two, there was no other way to let the reader know that the clan over which the Argeads ruled was not the Macedonians (until they got hold of all Macedonia) but of the Argeads alone. And of course, along with any contemporary reference, we should also add the primary source ref, a valuable tool for people who are really interested in researching the issue (I always look for te primary sources to verify any information I come across, since many errors are made, even by accomplished writers and historians, for many reasons).

Another thing you should proceed to explain, should you mention Emathia, is what it was. By reading your text, one understands that Emathia and Macedonia are two totally different areas, which they are not. This is why we cannot just quote form the original but have to give further explanation and shape up the text.

And the other reference is not from the same book but of :

"The Macedonian State", Nicholas Geoffrey Lemprière Hammond.

This also talks about the Argead clan and mentions the Emathian plain.

To sum up.. Strabo's words are not dimissing the Argead House tale. They are just adding that the same House was the ruling caste of the Argead clan. This is what should be relate to the reader and not that the Argeads were something different. If you want, make another change and we will see. If you wish I can add this info my way and you can comment too.

Now, as far as the indisputable status of the tale is concerned, there has to be no direct reference too. Should someone dispute what we write in good faith and produce a single Roman or Greek text as evidence, something that should pose no difficulty, should we be wrong, the info is out. But not even Borza could find a ingle such text! This is why he had to find other arguments to challenge the veracity of the tale. Even in byzantine texts, I have never yet come across any effort to present the legend as false.


GK1973 (talk) 09:42, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I generally agree with what you wrote! I rewrote the paragraph and tried to make it closer to what the source say! Have a look and change it if you like!
Seleukosa (talk) 17:20, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"their homonymous tribe" sounds unacademic and strange. "ruled" should here be used with "over", the comma should be erased before "and" etc. I also would keep the tribe's name in the text. The other addition you made is also superfluous. "by the time of Philip II" does not need any "later" to make sense. It could be "earlier" or "later" but it surely was "by that time". If you are satisfied with the rest of the presentation of the info, I would suggest reverting the wording to what I suggested. GK1973 (talk) 18:57, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct about the syntax of the sentence. I add your suggestions. I only insist in keeping the “ruled over their own homonymous tribe” witch means that they actually created it and not “find” it there. If you can describe it better please add what you feel will make it clearer. Seleukosa (talk) 22:57, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I reworded it a little to make the "homonymous" sound OK. Now it is OK, yet it did and still does not infer that they created it. The hypothesis that the Argead tribe took its name from the Argead House is made on the assumption that they are the Greeks mentioned to have accompannied the Temenids to Edessa. This could be mentioned in an article about the clan, which we should create in the near future. GK1973 (talk) 11:27, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fact or fiction

The mythology has to be highlighted as such, as Heracle is claimed to be the great grandson of the founder of the dynasty. The existence of such dynasty is only a claim. The mythological character of the claims makes it further dubious and the dynasty should be appointed as a claim rather than fact. Alexander I claimed to be from Argos only to participate in the Olympics but he also claimed to be a descendant of Heracle which is certainly not real. Nobody can dispute that the Heraclian descent of these kings is untrue. What we are writing here, a fairy tale or an encyclopedia? Prone to dispute is the actual Argos. There are other ancient settlements by the same name Argos:

Who is "Heracle"? Btw, in case you didn't notice, the article only says the Argeads claimed descent from Heracles, not the they actually were descended from him. There is nothing untrue or controversial about this statement.
talk) 22:29, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
This dynasty has even a mythical founder. Was him, Caranus of Macedon even real? Is the dynasty a myth story/claim or a serious historical fact? This article is about mythology, but the story about the dynasty containing unscientific myths is treated as a matter of fact throughout the articles. E.g. Philip: "Dynasty: Agread". More neutral would be said that he claimed to be part of such dynasty if so. This dynasty is unlike most others and contains much fiction which should be clarified throughout the articles. The route of the mythological founder Caranus on a real map implies that his trip was real. I assume that the claim of the kings for the trip on the map can be trusted as much as their claim for Heraclian descent.Judist (talk) 23:07, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Everything in the article, including the map, is sourced.
talk) 23:14, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
At the lead of
primary source and to a very old source, with the same justifications claims of older authors are disregarded at some articles. Judist (talk) 00:06, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
If you had actually bothered to check the sources of the map, instead of speaking without knowing, you would see that it's soruced to at least three different modern sources [1].
talk) 04:59, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Argead_dynasty&oldid=1195657728"