Talk:Alexander Jannaeus

Seleucids and the rebels

I'd like to know why it is stated in the section about the civil war, that "the rebels unbelievably asked for Seleucid assistance"? I think it needs substantiation. --Xact (talk) 18:33, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Numismatics

The coin shown here in this article is correctly stated as a coin minted under Alexander Jannaeus. However, Jannaeus minted two types of these coins, a smaller coin called a "lepton" and a larger coin called a "prutah". The larger prutah was much more attractive of a coin and thus ideal for an article such as this. The smaller lepton was crudely made and of a smaller value. Both coins had the anchor image on one side and star on the reverse. The prutah had writing around the anchor and the lepton just had a solid circle around the anchor. The IMPORTANCE in knowing this difference is that the Bible passage about the widow's mite coin specifically says "lepton" in the original GREEK, which makes sense thus emphasizing the poverty of the poor widow who gave all she had. Pictures of the different coins can be found at http://biblicalmites.com.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.230.18.251 (talk) 21:20, 2005 July 3 (UTC)

Caesarea's founding date

Caesarea Maritima was founded by Herod Antipas in the late 1st century BC, so how could it possibly be a conquest before this date, unless it is referring to Stratonospyrgos (Straton's Tower)? Either way, something is incorrect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.89.64.176 (talk) 20:50, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

6,000 people killed in the Temple courtyard?

Where does this number come from? Josephus?
Whoever counted the 6,000 dead? Even today police and military would be unable to evaluate such a high number of people. This number sounds very fanciful, as most numbers in Josephus. This should be mentioned. And this mass of people killed in the Temple courtyard? There are measurements of the Temple available. Could the courtyard contain such a crowd?
And where were the soldiers to kill so many people? With swords and spears? The whole account is fanciful. Killing 10 people is a big job, killing 100 a gigantic job, and killing 1,000 simply improbable. Josephus, writing in Rome, simply invents his figures. He had no military reports of numbers. He left for Rome with some personal documents and no archives. How on earth could he evaluate such numbers? They are simple feelings, to express a magnitude, not a report of objective quantities. --ROO BOOKAROO (talk) 22:26, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

800 Crucified?

Another legendary number cited by everybody.
Who counted them? That's a lot of crosses to assemble and set up, and a lot of soldiers to erect the crosses and set up the victims on their crosses?
Again, Josephus is writing in his comfortable rooms in Rome, and inventing whatever figures he wishes to employ to illustrate the magnitude of the repression. There was nobody around ever able to dispute his numbers.
These crucifixions are sometimes mentioned as being the inspiration for Paul's Jesus having been crucified. --ROO BOOKAROO (talk) 22:50, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Era-style change

A discussion to change the era-style of the article is ongoing at WikiProject_Judaism#Requesting_consensus_to_change_era-style. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 15:58, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Final campaigns and death

@Arminden: Which source states that Hippos was in Gaulana or Galaadits. You also changed in the section concerning Aretas III defeating Alexander from Aretas “had” defeated to “managed” as if Aretas struggled to defeat him, but I don’t recall any signs of struggle in the source. You added in brackets with a question mark “(Tell el-‘Ash’ari?)” next to Dium. If your source is uncertain of the location then it shouldn’t be added at all. It only creates unnecessary confusion. Jerm (talk) 01:18, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

@Jerm: Gaulana is a city. With Galaadits you probably mean Galaaditis, which is a region. Hippos was not in Galaaditis (Gilead). Hippos/Susita is in the Golan Heights, which during the Hellenistic period, more exactly under Seleucid rule, became known in Greek as Gaulanitis. The Decapolis was only established after Pompey's conquest in 63 BCE, so in 83-80 Hippos was still part of the Gaulanitis. If you want a source just for that, here it is (), but it is hardly needed - proving the obvious is absurd and leads to overburdening the articles.

Schäfer p75: "Aretas, king of the Nabateans, ... and who initially managed to defeat Alexander." So if anything, I'm guilty of repeating Schäfer's word "managed".

Dium (Tell el-'Ash'ari?): with the most rare exception of sites where they find inscriptions that contain the name of the city or of identifyable rulers (see Gezer, Ekron), hardly any identification of a tell with an ancient city is certain, even when the name is more or less preserved over centuries - because cities migrate, sometimes by several kilometres, along with their old names. So most identifications are contested, especially when they have been made only based on geographical location and maybe surveys (but many excavations don't help either, see et-Tell, which probably is neither Geshur, nor Bethsaida, after all). So writing "Dium (Tell el-'Ash'ari?)" with an according scientific source is more than legitimate. It is actually the norm. BUT, if you prefer, the 2001 Archaeological Encyclopedia of the Holy Land states that "The identification of Dium is still disputed, though most scholars place it at Tell Ashari, 9 miles northwest of Edrei." Voila. Same thing in other words. I see on p 136 it reads under Decapolis "Dium (uncertain, but possibly Tell Ashari)". The first apostrophe in Tell el-'Ash'ari was a mistake, the second apparently not a must. ()

OK now? Cheers and good night, Arminden (talk) 02:45, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

@Arminden: Concerning Gaulana, I read over the original source before you altered the section. After reading over it a few times, I can say it's a city. I guess when I added the section, I perceived the wording differently to more of a region rather than a city. And Aretas, the original source does state "managed". I didn't know he had used that term. The argument you presented for Dium is interesting. I checked to see if there was a Wiki article for Dium, and I found it as Dium (Coele-Syria). I think the argument for Dium being Tell el-"Ash'ari should be elaborated at Dium (Coele-Syria). The idea of adding Tel el-"Ash'ari next to Dium in brackets isn't really helpful since most people don't what that is or where. Jerm (talk) 19:34, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

@Arminden: I was just viewing the sources or trying concerning Dium. Emil's source doesn't mention Tell el-"Ash'ari and Negev's is not even accessible. Do you have another stating Dium is possibly being Tell el-'Ash'ari? Jerm (talk) 20:56, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Found it in Emil's source as footnote 334. The footnote states E.Schwartz started looking for Dium at Tell el-Ashari, but Emil suggests the stone with inscriptions might have just been displaced. Such information needs to be elaborated at Dium (Coele-Syria), not putting a location in brackets with a question mark. I am going to remove it because it is completely unhelpful. Jerm (talk) 19:49, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Time to stop reverting and start forming a consensus! I don't know much about this subject, but I have one little comment: it is anachronistic to use the title "Rabbi" for a period a couple of centuries before its earliest known use. Zero^talk 08:17, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

See

A lot of this is badly organized. I began to rewrite just one part re the imputed Pharisaic persecutions but it is too complex and I am very short of free time. This section all needs precise sourcing for each point, and elaboration, because when dealing with esp. partisan religious accounts in particular those from much later times, they can never be excerpted and cherrypicked to form a narrative. A lot of what we have here does precisely that, ignoring that controversy surrounds many points, as is normal in serious historiography.

It could help to start with pp.96ff,108ff in Jacob Neusner, The Rabbinic Traditions About the Pharisees Before 70, Part I: The Masters, Wipf and Stock Publishers, 2005Nishidani (talk) 18:29, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

@Nishidani: All the sources in the article are academic ones. They do elaborate arguments. The only reason why they aren't made in the article because I didn't add them when I was expanding the article. I just wanted the narrative part covered before any arguments were implemented into the article. Also, the source you provided is a reprint based off of the originally published version from 1970/71. If it were added to the article, it would be considered the oldest source in there and create a 20-30 year publishing gap with the other sources. By that time, consensus for arguments would have changed. Arguments concerning the Pharisees have been generally the same, they were a hindrance to Alexander. The article Demetrius III Eucaerus pretty much states the same thing about the Judean Civil War. Jerm (talk) 19:45, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

It doesn't matter that all the sources are academic, for academic sources on ancient history discuss, develop adopt or reject, various interpretations on the basis, frequently, of scant evidence. Ancient history is conjectural in large part. Of a score of dubious framings of the evidence my first glance here suggested, take the statement:

Pella was destroyed by Alexander's soldiers for refusing to accept their ancestral religion

Whatever the academic source, that is based on Josephus, whose assertion is contradicted by the archaeological record.

Never use, also, an article in Wikipedia as a reliable source. Nishidani (talk) 18:14, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

@Nishidani: I'm very aware of what WP:CIRC is. It was just used as an example of how content was being implemented or how is should be since the article is FA status. As I said before, academic arguments haven't been added yet. And it does matter if the sources are academic per WP:SECONDARY. Academic sources are what's needed to support your arguments for or to establish the "archaeological record" The narrative of Alexander's life isn't completed yet. The "Family" section needs to be sourced and the WP:LEAD expanded. The death of Alexander is also incomplete, so there's a lot of major issues. There isn't even a section concerning archeological evidence as you keep reminding. Jerm (talk) 18:38, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Look, I don't have much time: offline I am a carer for a relative with dementia, something I have some practical knowledge of since I've edited wikipedia for 14 years. Really, I don't need a fruit salad of policy indications to work out how even FA articles are done: I and some others brought The Shakespeare Authorship Question through that process.

One should never write a line here without a very reliable source at one's elbow. I mentioned off the cuff that the archaeology of Pella does not corroborate the notice in Josephus, and experts know that. Anyone familiar with the topic would know that, or, if forgotten, reconfirm it in a few minutes. It's not myargument. The family section is hopelessly inaccurate in its simplifications. But, as I said, I don't have time to do much here, having heavy off-line commitments. Nishidani (talk) 13:47, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

@Nishidani: I've never disagreed with your argument concerning Pella or anything you said, but you're not willing to put the effort into confirm an argument or improve the article. I've already found a source confirming your statement on Pella, but you're going to implement it yourself or someone else can do it for you. And I already said some of the sections needed sourcing and other issues etc. Source: Atkinson, Kenneth (2016). A History of the Hasmonean State: Josephus and Beyond. Bloomsbury Publishing. p. 132. ISBN 9780567669032. Jerm (talk) 17:06, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Willingness has nothing to do with it. I've been interrupted 16 times this afternoon by a person seeking urgent help as they flee regularly from their carers to my house. I am under an obligation to make that my priority, since the techniques I use appear to function to minimalise the panic, for the person and their relatives. I can't edit in these circumstances, other than make suggestions. Please read closely what I write . I've managed to rush up at least the note below to illustrate how one ought to edit articles on premodern topic, using the contested line as an example.

I know of that and several other sources. Ancient history is not well represented on Wikipedia because of a general failure to use an adequate scholarly method, called 'the genealogy of interpretation(s)'. As I said all ancient history is invested by the need for conjectural reconstructions from scant resources, and every fact has multiple ways of being explained. This is how a rewriting of this page would go, were that standard method applied by editors coming here.

Pella was destroyed by Alexander's soldiers for refusing to accept their ancestral religion

1. The first thing is that the phrasing of this sentence is inept because it we don’t know if it means Pella was destroyed because its denizens refused to accept Pella’s ancestral religion (them corruptive pagan Greeks in the midst of Semites!) or because it refused to accept the ancestral religion of Alexander’s soldiers. As you surely know, Jannaeus’s soldiery included pagan mercenaries, many of them Greeks, so one could also imagine from the slipshod generalization that the Semitic inhabitants refused to bow down before the pagan idols revered by the invasive phalanxes. The assumption quick reading makes is that the soldiers in question were Jewish, not Greeks. A mess, in short.
2. One can find RS that support 'utterly destroyed' as one can find RS that deny it. So thinking that, having used an on-topic specialist RS, one is getting somewhere, is illusory.

#Scholars disagree, strongly or in nuance, on the details of vast tracts of ancient history so a narrative that is reliable must reflect this liquid state of hermeneutic uncertainty by drafting text in a way that assures the reader we are dealing, as often as not with sophisticated slants, not a known quantity. Let me illustrate. The whole line comes from interpretations of Josephus's Jewish Antiquities (13 397), which in the original runs:

(396 ἐν δὲ τῇ μεσογαίᾳ κατὰ τὴν Ἰδουμαίαν Ἄδωρα καὶ Μάρισαν καὶ ὅλην Ἰδουμαίαν, Σαμάρειαν Καρμήλιον ὄρος καὶ τὸ Ἰταβύριον ὄρος Σκυθόπολιν Γάδαρα, Γαυλανίτιδας Σελεύκειαν Γάβαλα (397)Μωαβίτιδας Ἠσεβὼν Μήδαβα Λεμβὰ Ορωναιμαγελεθων Ζόαρα Κιλίκων αὐλῶνα Πέλλαν, ταύτην κατέσκαψεν ὑποσχομένων τῶν ἐνοικούντων ἐς πάτρια τῶν Ἰουδαίων ἔθη μεταβαλεῖσθαι, ἄλλας τε πόλεις πρωτευούσας τῆς Συρίας ἦσαν κατεστραμμένοι.

#To support the notion of the city being razed to the ground, among recent literature, one could rest content citing

reports of forced Judaization of Greek inhabitants of the city of Pella (Jos.AJ 13 397). Scholars are not in agreement over the credibility of that account with respect to whether the forced Judaization could apply, other than to Semitic peoples, also to members of a Greek population Because residents of Pella firmly refused to accept the conqueror-imposed religious practice, the citywas razed. Alexander’s brutality here was unexceptional: his predecessors and himself had behaved in similar, or only slightly more lenient way, toward captured cities.' Edward Dąbrowa, The Hasmoneans and their State: A Study in History, Ideology, and the Institutions, ELECTRUM, Studia z historii starożytne vol. 16 Jagiellonian University Press Kraków) 2010 ISBN 978-8-323-32821-1 pp.91-92

1. But Dąbrowa was not citing a fact, but accepting a received view which took Josephus at his word. The following year, Daniel R. Schwartz's now influential article Yannai and Pella, Josephus and Circumcision, Dead Sea Discoveries 18 (2011): 339–59, came out. In it he argued that the passage in question in Josephus was unreliable, and probably came from Strabo. A tertiary source summary of the dispute exists

’ The consequences of a similar practice were to be experienced by the inhabitants of Pella after its conquest at the hands of Alexander Jannaeus, cf.Josephus AJ 13,397. The story of the destruction of this city and the forced Judaization of its Greek inhabitants causes much disagreement among scholars regarding its credibility. Some recognize this source, while others question it, cf. Dąbrowa 2010a:91-92. According to D. R Schwartz (2011:339-359), the passage on Pella is not the work of Josephus. Furthermore, it cannot be trusted as the image of the effects of the conquest of the city seen through the prism of archaeological data do not confirm the scale of destruction referred to in the cited passage.’in Kenneth Atkinson , A History of the Hasmonean State: Josephus and Beyond, Bloomsbury Publishing, 2016 p.132

1. This appears to have Dąbrowa convinced to change his view because now he writes:

‘the effects of the conquest of the city seen through the prism of archaeological data do not confirm the scale of destruction referred to in the cited passage. Edward Dąbrowa, The Hasmoneans’ Attitude towards Cities, in Roland Oetjen, Francis Xavier Ryan (eds.), New Perspectives in Seleucid History, Archaeology and Numismatics: Studies in Honor of Getzel M. Cohen. Walter de Gruyter ISBN 978-3-110-38855-8 2019 n.11.

In (the) light of just these four sources how then would one adjust the defective sentence above?

According to Josephus, Pella was razed by Jannaeus when its inhabitants refused to Judaize.

This is the only approach for writing articles on ancient history, line by line. It's no easy task, and I commend your desire and willingness to work this article. I have no time to repeat the above operation over all of its sentences.

Map: we need one, don't delete a good one w/o replacing it

@Jerm: Hi. The map was introduced here, in 2008, by Alorkezas, an editor ("student of European Studies at the University of Warsaw") who contributed for 3 years. His main interest was "Palestine under Roman rule" and in April-May 2008 he contributed maps for pretty much every article about Hasmonean and Herodian rulers. I don't understand what you mean by "the file has no source to support it" - WP maps are usually created by editors based on copyrighted online maps, so that's the norm. Maps old enough to be (c)-free are usually out of date and irrelevant. The one here must be compared to other maps of Jannaeus' kingdom from reliable sources, that's the criterion. Checking out several (see list below), it is obvious that different sources came up with slightly varying maps, which is not surprising, since that's how political geography worked in the more remote past: it was a matter of changing political allegiances, partial conquests, and basically of spheres of influence. Also, the region has large areas of desert or steppe, where the central power (if there is one) doesn't count for much anyway; what matters is who controls the cities, the roads, and maybe the water bodies and courses. Also, the original sources are remote in time and biased. So you'll NEVER get a UN-type map. That said, Alorkezas' map looks good. One can argue if the following areas were indeed Hasmonean, or had the size offered by Alorkezas:

• Αzotus/Ashdod
• northern tip of "Iturea": was it indeed so long? It seems not.
• Was what's now Haifa (where Mt Carmel touches the Med) part of the kingdom? Most maps say yes, but not all.
• Rhinocolura (El-Arish) is left out of his map, but I can see why, this would add a lot of empty space around the actually relevant territory.
  

All these aspects are rather minor, good sources differ in regard to them, so Alorkezas' map seems to me perfectly OK for our purposes. I would cut a bit from the northernmost tip, his "Iturea" has a length more than 3x the distance between the Sea of Galilee and Lake Hula (Semechonitis), while most other maps use a factor of maybe 1.5x, limiting it to slightly north of Paneas (Banias). Southern Syrian local patriots might disagree, but I'm pretty sure that particular bit doesn't throw the map into the "we're better off without" category. At all.
Conclusion: somebody who knows how to use the WP mappping tools (@Zero0000: interested?) should cut "Iturea" to size, and the rest is OK. Other changes and additions can be made, such as names of provinces (see Austrian map), but don't seem essential. Until that's done, Alorkezas' map belongs back in, since it gives all the important info and SERVES THE NEEDS OF THE REGULAR USER, which is the only relevant principle.
Here a few of the more convincing maps out there:

• Kunsthistorischen Museum Wien
• The Map Archive
• Carta
  

Cheers, Arminden (talk) 07:13, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

@Arminden: I agree it's a minor issue, but most sources show more territory than what this one is displaying. Jerm (talk) 07:45, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

@Jerm: A) I disagree, see the listed maps - except for irrelevant fringes, this one actually shows more rather than less, including the western Carmel around Shikmona, Azotus, both of which are sometimes left out of his territory, and that northern extension into Syria that looks like a plain mistake. B) If all you mean is the extent of his Transjordanian conquests, that's an even weaker argument for removing this map w/o putting another one in its stead. Beyond a narrow strip of relatively fertile land in the west, where all of the cities were located, Transjordan presented very little interest to a kingdom-building ruler like Jannaeus. The caravaneers might have been interested in Wadi Sirhan and the oasis at Azraq, but there is hardly anything that would have attracted Jannaeus beyond what's highlighted on the map. And, again, he didn't have a set border like the Roman limes. Arminden (talk) 09:44, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

@Arminden: You tried to justify the map based on the uploader’s time on Wikipedia and the kind of topic s/he has edited which is completely irrelevant. You provided sources which the maps in them agree more with each other than the one already here, then say Alexander had know interest in the Transjordan as if your an expert. You think the map here is already too big. How would you know if it was too big? The map does not even have a source to support its boundaries. And FYI, Alexander expanded plenty in the Transjordan. It’s clearly stated and sourced at the “Death” section. Jerm (talk) 10:13, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm trying hard to stay civil and keep a certain level, which presumes that we can read and understand each other's arguments properly. For that reason, I will refrain from continuing here. A last hint: google for map Alexander Jannaeus. I've written all there is to say and I leave it to whoever feels the urge to take this up. Bye, Arminden (talk) 10:59, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

@Arminden: A content dispute does not end suddenly by leaving without consensus. I have stated my argument for the removal of the map because it’s boundaries is not sourced. The map is from 2008. It is 2020. This map has been displayed for ten plus years. It is inaccurate. The sources which you provided support my argument. If you are going to leave the discussion, you are informing me that I have approval to remove it because you’re not willing to continue the discussion. And do not wait for a third party to establish your argument. You are the one who reverted me. Provide a reliable/educational source that supports the maps boundaries. And in response to just “google it” is not an argument. It is not my responsibility to establish your argument. If you’re really serious about an agreement, just get of rid this unsourced misleading map. Jerm (talk) 15:42, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

@Arminden: I am still waiting for you to respond to my question. Do you have an educational source which displays a map almost exactly like this one? The sources which you provided do not support the boundaries of the one currently being displayed. I know you are waiting for a third party to dispute on your behalf, but I want you to answer my question. Please do not argue in favor for the map simply because you like it. That's like saying you like inaccurate information. Jerm (talk) 17:20, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

I wrote to the author. Arminden (talk) 19:21, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

@Arminden: I appreciate it that you messaged the uploader, however, that tells me you don't have a source to support the map yourself. I also saw in the message saying that I had concerns about the maps boundaries not being big enough in the Transjordan. My counter for that is the fact that I never really specified the issues concerning the map other than its boundaries not being big enough. I did not specifically say the Transjordan only. Now that I'm talking about it, I'll point out the obvious issues. There are no labels for the regions conquered by Alexander or the small white region surrounded by the Hasmonean kingdom at the coastline. There are also no labels for the cities which Alexander conquered. At this point, we're just making the readers guess. And then you say the map it too big. How do you know that? How did you determine the boundaries without a source? I was going to provide a reliable source on what the map should look like, but you did it for me by providing sources. I'm sure this map was acceptable in 2008 but this is 2020. We have as editors so many sources available. I can come up with another map from a reliable source that correlates with the maps on the sources you provided, but for some reason, you are struggling to provide one for the map here. Instead, you're in favor for the map because you like it or it looks good. That is not an argument, that is an opinion. You told the uploader you don't support my opinions, but I'm stating obvious facts. You don't want to be in this dispute because you can't produce an argument, nor can you counter mine. That's why you keep messaging or pinging someone else, so you can have them do it for you. I'm not letting you though. If you really want to leave this discussion, then self-revert or let me revert for you. Stop wasting my time. Jerm (talk) 22:07, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

@Jerm: My friend, you should first and foremost take a step back and use your skills in understanding written text. What does the heading of this "discussion" say? I formulated it with a purpose. Read that, understand it, then read my full answer, understand that, and you'll be not be wasting anybody's time anymore, starting with yours. I do NOT like the old map, for starters. Good luck. Arminden (talk) 10:16, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

@Arminden: I really don't care what the heading says, and I'm not surprised you're still avoiding my questions. But now you suddenly don't like the map? I'm definitely not convinced because you still want to keep it. Truthfully, because you like it. Again, that's an opinion. Stop wasting my time. If you can't counter my arguments or produce your own, then I have every right to remove that misconception of a map. Jerm (talk) 17:05, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Please, both of you. Instead of discussing how to discuss, let's discuss the map itself. I can't comment upon its historical value, but artistically it looks low quality. Debresser (talk) 00:54, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Arminden provided a solid set of remarks on maps, and asked for a discussion of the merits. So far Jerm has sidestepped everything Arminden has requested input on. This is not about aesthetics.Nishidani (talk) 21:40, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

@Nishidani: Could you elaborate what you mean by "aesthetics"? Jerm (talk) 22:08, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Read the remark above mine, esp. 'artistically it looks low quality'.Nishidani (talk) 10:14, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Here is a list of my concerns which I stated above already:

• It has no labels/names for the regions conquered by Alexander which these regions are depicted in purple on the map.
• It has no labels/names for the cities Alexander conquered or any for the spot of land at the coastline surrounded by the Hasmonean kingdom.
• There is no sourced version of the map to support the borders/boundaries of the map here.

Because of those reasons, viewers are just going to guess and truthfully, they should't be. Basically, my argument has to do with accuracy. Jerm (talk) 23:04, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

1. These are too generic to be useful as objections. Arminden's arguments focus on a lot of specific detail, indicating he has familiarized himself with the minutiae. Secondly, he is allowing for modifications, so his argument is that the map in question is a solid starting point, and whatever is protested as lacking, can be added. One of his cited maps seems close to a sourced version, if lacking the detail of the latter. With Arminden's edits, outsiders like myself have a certain confidence (s)he has gone to the trouble of looking at length into the problem, and so far I see no adequate response to his proposal, which is flexible, in any case, as the historical obscurities behind any modern mapping would lead us to expect.Nishidani (talk) 10:26, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Judea

Hello @Arminden:, you changed the lead from Alexander ruling Judaea to Judah with a redirect to Kingdom of Judah. I reverted it back because the Kingdom of Judah is referred to the biblical southern kingdom first ruled by Rehoboam. Judea (alternative spelling "Judaea") is the term used for the Hasmonean/Herodian kingdoms. Jerm (talk) 02:18, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Hello @Jerm: That's fine, you're right, I didn't check. What I thought (and it only took me a second) was: a) the Maccabeans were from the area of Judah, they started off in the Shephelah and focused on Jerusalem, so theirs (later, as "Hasmoneans") was a kingdom of Judah, which gradually expanded into Samaria, etc.; and b) Judaea is the Latin name, and Pompey only showed up in 63 BCE, Alexander & Co. had no business calling their kingdom in a language nobody cared for yet. But the terminology already exists as it does, closed topic. I was wrong. What I wanted was to reintroduce a wikilink to the kingdom, which was missing; all the rest was secondary fallout. Cheers, Arminden (talk) 08:41, 22 April 2020 (UTC)