Talk:Family tree of ancient Georgian monarchs
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Family tree of ancient Georgian monarchs redirect. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
What source is there that the kings of Iberia descend from Diauehi?--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 22:56, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
- Hey Spy. The article is not over yet. There are few mistakes which I'm working on it. GEORGIANJORJADZE 23:10, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
- I don't where you are going with this. But I advise you to stay away from any legends or mythological genealogies.--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 00:35, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
- Do you see here any legends? Diaokhi monarchs will stay in the family tree but it surely had no connection with Pharnabazids. Also I need your suggestion is there any way we can get the free image photo of Giorgi Bagration Bagrationi? GEORGIANJORJADZE 00:42, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
- The term "family tree" implies family/genealogical connection. The rulers of Diauehi have nothing to do with the kings of ancient Iberia. They were not genealogically connected. Nor was there any sort of succession, whether "legal" or "historical-cultural". Even in the case of the kings of Iberia, the chart is just a list as recorded in the Georgian Chronicles. That's not a family tree. --KoberTalk 11:09, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
- I've said there was a mistake of connecting Diaokhis to Iberia. Family tree means that one comes from another and they descend from each other. GEORGIANJORJADZE 12:19, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
- OK, but there is no indication that Utupurs descended from Asia and Asia descended from Sien. Mirian I of Iberia did not descend from Saurmag I of Iberia, but was his son-in-law, etc. Even if the page proves viable, many issues will stay and they need to be addressed. --KoberTalk 12:25, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
- Yes but historical sources say so about the Diaokhis the way they descended. I agree about addressing all the issues here as I am for the perfection of all the articles and want them to be so. It is clear that the Bagrations were descenended from Pharnabazids via Gouramids and Chosroids. GEORGIANJORJADZE 12:40, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
- Can you name any historical source specifying the genealogy for the rulers of Diauehi. I don't know any of these. I would also disagree with you about the straightforward Pharnabazid-Bagrationi lineage. That's definitely not correct. Occasional marital connections in the later generations don't imply the direct descent. --KoberTalk 12:48, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
- You mean their exact genealogy? As for Bagrations they were descended from Pharnabazids via Chosroaids and then Gouramids. GEORGIANJORJADZE 13:05, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
- I mean what I said. Do you have any sources for what you have just said: (1) "historical sources say so about the Diaokhis the way they descended" and (2) "Bagrations were descended from Pharnabazids via Chosroaids and then Gouramids". Unfortunately, I will be out of reach to the internet for a couple of days. I will return ASAP. --KoberTalk 13:23, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
- You mean their exact genealogy? As for Bagrations they were descended from Pharnabazids via Chosroaids and then Gouramids. GEORGIANJORJADZE 13:05, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
- Can you name any historical source specifying the genealogy for the rulers of Diauehi. I don't know any of these. I would also disagree with you about the straightforward Pharnabazid-Bagrationi lineage. That's definitely not correct. Occasional marital connections in the later generations don't imply the direct descent. --KoberTalk 12:48, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
- Yes but historical sources say so about the Diaokhis the way they descended. I agree about addressing all the issues here as I am for the perfection of all the articles and want them to be so. It is clear that the Bagrations were descenended from Pharnabazids via Gouramids and Chosroids. GEORGIANJORJADZE 12:40, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
- OK, but there is no indication that Utupurs descended from Asia and Asia descended from Sien. Mirian I of Iberia did not descend from Saurmag I of Iberia, but was his son-in-law, etc. Even if the page proves viable, many issues will stay and they need to be addressed. --KoberTalk 12:25, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
- I've said there was a mistake of connecting Diaokhis to Iberia. Family tree means that one comes from another and they descend from each other. GEORGIANJORJADZE 12:19, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
- The term "family tree" implies family/genealogical connection. The rulers of Diauehi have nothing to do with the kings of ancient Iberia. They were not genealogically connected. Nor was there any sort of succession, whether "legal" or "historical-cultural". Even in the case of the kings of Iberia, the chart is just a list as recorded in the Georgian Chronicles. That's not a family tree. --KoberTalk 11:09, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
- Do you see here any legends? Diaokhi monarchs will stay in the family tree but it surely had no connection with Pharnabazids. Also I need your suggestion is there any way we can get the free image photo of Giorgi Bagration Bagrationi? GEORGIANJORJADZE 00:42, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
- I don't where you are going with this. But I advise you to stay away from any legends or mythological genealogies.--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 00:35, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
I really think this should be pruned or deleted. The three known kings of Diauehi are not shown in the sources to be descendant of each other. We know barely anything about thayt state. What source do you have that Sien, Asia and Utupurshi are related? Also the straightforward descent of the Kings of Iberia looks fabricated to me or unreliable and based on apocryphal genealogy trying to connect one family to another through history.--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 19:31, 24 August 2013 (UTC)