Talk:Arsaces I of Parthia

Arsaces I of Parthia has been listed as one of the History good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. Review: March 17, 2019. (Reviewed version).

This  level-5 vital article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Biography: Military / Royalty and Nobility This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles This article is supported by the military biography work group (assessed as Low-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject Royalty and Nobility (assessed as Low-importance). Iran High‑importance High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. inactive .ZoroastrianismWikipedia:WikiProject ZoroastrianismTemplate:WikiProject ZoroastrianismZoroastrianism articles

Classical Greece and Rome Mid‑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 Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Ancient Near East Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ancient Near East, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ancient Near East related articles 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.Ancient Near EastWikipedia:WikiProject Ancient Near EastTemplate:WikiProject Ancient Near EastAncient Near East articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Central Asia Mid‑importance

Arsaces I of Parthia is part of WikiProject Central Asia, a project to improve all Central Asia-related articles. This includes but is not limited to Afghanistan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Mongolia, Tajikistan, Tibet, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Xinjiang and Central Asian portions of Iran, Pakistan and Russia, region-specific topics, and anything else related to Central Asia. If you would like to help improve this and other Central Asia-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome.Central AsiaWikipedia:WikiProject Central AsiaTemplate:WikiProject Central AsiaCentral Asia articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Military history: Biography / Middle East / Classical

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

Page views of this article over the last 90 days: Graphs are unavailable due to technical issues. There is more info on Phabricator and on MediaWiki.org.

This review is

transcluded from Talk:Arsaces I of Parthia/GA1

. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: T8612 (talk · contribs) 15:00, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Failed "good article" nomination

This article has failed its Good article nomination. This is how the article, as of January 14, 2019, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: pass

2. Verifiable?: fail

3. Broad in coverage?: fail

4. Neutral point of view?: pass

5. Stable?: pass

6. Images?: pass

• I think you must include the ancient sources you mention (Marcellinus and Strabo).
• You mention Frye but do not cite him; add refs to his books.
• You say that "in Iranian national history", but it's a vague statement, give sources. Is it still the case under the Islamic Republic?
• You use the word "Zoroastrian"; explain further what it is and how it's important (for example what was his religion?).
• You say "According to some sources", but it's vague; give the sources.
• What was his cultural background? You show a coin with Greek and Aramaic letters, so his kingdom was multilingual/cultural--how did he manage this mix of cultures? Did he favour one over others? The appropriation of Achaemenid symbols should be developed further.

I think the article is too "light" to be a good article; the reader is left wanting more. Arsaces was the founder of the Parthian Empire and reigned for thirty years, but the article does not reflect his importance in history. You should detail much more the transition of Parthia from a Seleucid Satrapy to a growing Empire, then the institutions he founded, etc. I find more info on Parthian Empire.

I would create the following sections: (1) Family background/upbringing (discussing his ethnicity (the Parni), religion, etc.; you also mention a brother and a father) (2) geopolitical situation about 250 BC + Arsaces becomes leader of the Parni and defeats Andragoras (3) management of his kingdom (with perhaps a subsection on his coinage), his relationship with the nobility and other cultures, the use of Achaemenid symbols... (4) wars and diplomacy with the Seleucids/Baktria (5) descendance and succession (where is he buried?) (6) legacy, among the subsequent Parthian kings, and in Iranian history (is there any modern monument dedicated to him?). Finally, you could also make a (first) section on ancient sources (archaeology and literature; what you say about hostile Roman historians is interesting and could be expanded). Feel free to suggeest a better structure, but you must have more sections.

When these issues are addressed, the article can be renominated. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to have it reassessed. Thank you for your work so far.— T8612 (talk) 15:00, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@T8612: Thanks for your review, but I must say I disagree with some of your points

• Marcellinus and Strabo are already mentioned in the source.
• Frye's statement is mentioned in the source itself.
• Well I have already given a source regarding the Iranian national history thing. I have no idea if its the same case under the Islamic Republic, as there is no source about that. But I'm sure the IRI couldn't care less about pre-Islamic figures.
• That's fair enough.
• Thats already stated in the citation of the source (Daryaee)
• There's not much really to say about that. Sure, the culture of the Parthians was a mix of Greek and Iranian, but there's not really any source that goes into the depth of the culture of Arsaces I, as he is really all in all a obsecure figure. What I have written about him is generally most of what we know of him.

I can expand his ethnicity/religion/legacy a bit more, and probably find something about the Achaemenid symbols/more about his coins, but that's all really. There isn't much more to expand, unless im heavily mistaken. I for one, can't find other proper sources for him. There isn't a source that talks about his relationship with the nobility and other cultures, where he is buried, nor is there any modern monument dedicated to him. --HistoryofIran (talk) 17:14, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Marcellinus and Strabo are mentioned in a source, but they are also accessible online (I gave the links above) and should be cited on their own right. Idem for Frye, the original source should be in footnote.

Even if your sources do not mention Arsaces directly, you can still talk about him. For example, the article does not say whether he was buried in Nisa, while the Nisa article says it was founded under him and was the royal necropolis. A reader looking at Nisa and then clicking on the link to Arsaces will not find anything on Nisa in the latter article (hence why I say "the reader is left wanting more"). It's ok to say that we do not know whether he's buried there or whether he founded the town.

I have checked the Cambridge History of Iran, and there is *a lot* to take from there (example on the historicity of Arsaces). T8612 (talk) 18:19, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@T8612:: Hey there. How do I citate the Marcellinus/Strabo sources in the same fashion as my other citations? --HistoryofIran (talk) 23:41, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ancient sources should not be cited like that, because there are many editions in multiple languages of each work (and few people have the same edition); it is better to keep the numbering found in the ancient book (do not use page number).

I use one formatting, but there some other acceptable ones. Mine looks like this: [Name of author], [book title (not needed if the author has only one)], [book number in roman numerals]. [chapter number in Arabic numerals] § [paragraph number, not always needed]. So in case of Strabo, it would look like that: Strabo, vii. 5 § 5. Look at how it looks in an article I wrote.

You have an online edition of Strabo here. Marcellinus' work is on Wikisource, so you can add a link to it as I did with Livy in my article (it would look like this: Marcellinus, xiv. 11). T8612 (talk) 00:04, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've done it. Also, Cambridge didn't really give interesting/new information about him, and its also kinda outdated regarding his life. It mostly talks about Arsaces' disputed successor, which I've already written about. Anyhow, the article is somewhat bigger now than when it was when you first reviewed it, and has more sections as well. EDIT: forgot to expand the bibliography, gonna do it now. --HistoryofIran (talk) 01:09, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Precisely, what you say about Cambridge is interesting. You should explain why it is outdated. As it is a reference work, one would expect it to be mentioned here. Historiographical discussions should definitely be included, espectially when the article is not that long. It would look like this: "It was long assumed that Arsaces was xxxx, a theory elaborated by Smith, then Brown.[refs] However, the work of Johnson and the archaeological excavations at Nisa by O'Neil have disproved Smith's theory because etc.[refs]". Look at the article on Titus Torquatus I linked above; I included a scholarly discussion about the historicity of a letter to the Jews.

Some other things:

"Arsaces and his Parni followers seized Astauene", from whom?

Be consistent in your date formatting (BC or BCE), although I prefer when the AD/BC/BC(E) are only used in the lede and titles.

The "According to some sources" is vague, give the sources (all of them if possible).

"from Greek and Roman sources", is it possible to add here ", namely Strabo and Marcellinus"? Is there any inscription (besides coins) with his name? T8612 (talk) 15:22, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I see, I'll take a look at it later when I have time.

Some other things:

"Arsaces and his Parni followers seized Astauene", from whom? Added Andragoras.

Be consistent in your date formatting (BC or BCE), although I prefer when the AD/BC/BC(E) are only used in the lede and titles. Woopsie, fixed (I think?)

The "According to some sources" is vague, give the sources (all of them if possible). The source I citated it from simply states "some ancient authors"

"from Greek and Roman sources", is it possible to add here ", namely Strabo and Marcellinus"? Is there any inscription (besides coins) with his name? The source says "Greek and Roman sources", to emphasize that generally sources from those areas were hostile to the Parthians. Also, as of now there isn't any inscription of Arsaces besides coins. --HistoryofIran (talk) 01:36, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@T8612: I've added the Cambridge part now, whaddya think? --HistoryofIran (talk) 19:38, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's a good start. I found the article of Wolski (1962) and think you should include many things he says; it's in French though (I can help). He seems to have had a strong influence on the subject. The article is there, and his biography with a list of refs here. I corrected the tone a bit, you're speaking of scholars, not fake news; "debunked" is a bit too strong. Take a look at this article on Nisa.

I'm also wondering if there is a family tree of the Arsacids somewhere? T8612 (talk) 22:30, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@T8612: Eh well I can't speak French, lel, so that would be nice. I don't really know what to do with the jstor source tbh. I can create a Arsacid family tree in the article, want me to do that? --HistoryofIran (talk) 16:25, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, a family tree would look good. I'll add info from the French article when I have the time. The Jstor article deals with the foundation of Nisa and mentions the ostraka with Arsaces' name. T8612 (talk) 15:10, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This review is

transcluded from Talk:Arsaces I of Parthia/GA2

. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: T8612 (talk · contribs) 11:54, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have a few improvements to make:

• The tree should feature the dates of reigns of the kings, and their wives and siblings (when known).
• I think a bit of clarification on his title is needed. I tried to add this in the lede, but I don't find it satisfying. He was the founder of Parthia, but it wasn't the Parthian Empire yet. So it should be said that he founded what would become the Parthian Empire (who was the first Parthian king to take the title King of Kings?). In the infobox, it is written "King of the Arsacid dynasty", then in the text "Tiridates succeeded him as king of the Arsacids", but the dynasty was not a kingdom, it should be king of Parthia. Do we have the exact title he used?
• Do we have a map of Parthia? The one in the article doesn't really detail the region. A map with the cities mentioned in the article would be ideal. T8612 (talk) 11:54, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@T8612:

• Done.
• Not sure I get it? I mean, it was a kingdom that Arsaces I created? And it first later became an empire under Mithridates I, who assumed the title of king of kings. I did this btw [1]

Ok, that's fine, but I'm still bothered by his title in the infobox, shouldn't it be "King of Parthia"? idem for "king of the Arsacid dynasty". T8612 (talk) 15:18, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• We don't unfortunately. --HistoryofIran (talk) 14:14, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Too bad.

• I've expanded the lede a bit to mention the lack of source and the doubts about his existence, since it is likely that older books mention him as mythical. This info should therefore be mentioned in the lede. T8612 (talk) 15:18, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@T8612: Well it could be either, I just prefer Arsacid dynasty since its more accurate/less misleading, due to Arsaces' kingdom composing not only of the region/province of Parthia but also the neighboring Hyrcania. --HistoryofIran (talk) 16:13, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've expanded the tree and added colours, tell me if that's ok. T8612 (talk) 15:32, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@T8612: Yes it's nice, thanks. No matter what I tried I struggled to figure how to put colors in the family tree. Is there anything else to improve? --HistoryofIran (talk) 18:21, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's because you added spaces in the code. Everything is fine, I'm going to promote it. The article is now more than twice the size of the one you first nominated. It was worth improving it. T8612 (talk) 23:34, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Status: passed. Great job. T8612 (talk) 23:38, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes indeed, thank you very much! --HistoryofIran (talk) 17:07, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In the history of Hamza al-Isfahani, the Parthian king who fought Antiochus (Antiochus II, probably) is called Shapur. It is possible that Arsaces I wasn't first Arsacid king, but he was the first member of the dynasty who conquered somewhere. (he is the third king after death of Darius in this book) So his personal name was Shapur and Arsaces was his throne name, like other Parthian kings. Aryzad (talk) 15:26, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Arsaces was the first Arsacid king, there's no doubt about that. --HistoryofIran (talk) 15:30, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

First recorded Arsacid king. His father was probably king of some nomads, or a city. But Arsaces was the one who conquered somewhere. Grandfather of that Shapur is called Arsaces son Darius in the book. Aryzad (talk) 15:54, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Now you're just making assumptions. You have to take ancient sources with a grain of salt, they usually have a lot of errors, which is corrected in modern sources. If you are right, then how come not any (prominent) modern source makes mention of that? --HistoryofIran (talk) 16:26, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not prominent sources, but yes, I can remember some modern books about this. "Political history of the Parthian Empire" by Sherwin Vakili. The author says Al-Tabbari called Arsaces I "Ashk ibn Askhan", which means Arsaces son of Arsaces son of Arsaces. Also in the forth volume of "Lost Millennium", the author says it's not believable that some adventurer suddenly showed up from nowhere and conquered Parthia, and says he was probably king of somewhere. This assumption that he was just another king of the dynasty, and not the founder is completely believable for me. Aryzad (talk) 18:03, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wut? please read the article, it literally states in the second section that he was the leader of the Parni before establishing the dynasty, and that he was the son of a certain Phriapites. --HistoryofIran (talk) 19:12, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This actually what I'm saying. He was leader of the Parnis, like his father, who was Arsaces too. He was not the founder of the dynasty. Aryzad (talk) 20:06, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There's no mention of his father being the leader of the Parni. Also, leader of the Parni =/= King. Not every ruler/leader is a king. --HistoryofIran (talk) 20:12, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Nikephoros1: You keep claiming that the bit regarding Arsaces' father Phriapites is unsourced/uncertain, yet this very citation contradicts you;

"They adopted the latter’s name, bore purely Iranian—even Zoroastrian—names (Lassen, Indische Altertumskunde II, Bonn, 1847, p. 285 n. 3, could connect the name of Arsaces’ father, Phriapites, with an Avestan *Friya pitā “father-lover” = Greek Philopatros)."

And while you keep removing that bit on the basis that it has "no evidence" you keep adding information without any (reliable) source whatsoever. This is

Alright no harm pal but he did use the title of King of kings or basileus and was born in Bactria for sure. Nikephoros1 (talk) 13:29, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You still don't seem to get it 'pal'. What you think is completely irrelevant - we use (reliable) sources here. If you don't have any reliable source that supports your theories, then please leave this article alone. --HistoryofIran (talk) 13:30, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]