Jump to content

Talk:Georgian monarchs family tree of Bagrationi dynasty of united Georgia

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

Bagrationi

[edit]

Georgian sources state that the Bagrationi dynasty began from 6th century. Here and here are the sources. GEORGIANJORJADZE 17:17, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Does the source say who Adarnase I of Tao-Klarjeti's parents are? Do they say he was son of Stephen II and brother of Archil. Do they say the princes of Iberia line descend from son to son to son like you have here? You have Adarnase I of Iberia as the son of Stephen I of Iberia. --The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 17:22, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I missed both of you as I was writing below. Both sources linked here by GJ are medieval primary sources, the first one the Conversion of Kartli (chronicle). Regardless of what they say, they do not meet the criteria for WP:RS, otherwise we might as well just write that the Bagrationi are scions of David.Susuman77 (talk) 17:33, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No Guaramid origin for the Bagratids

[edit]

GeorgianJorjadze, I know you are trying to improve the encyclopedia, but your hasty method really runs contrary to its best interests. Kober and The Emperor's New Spy have already told you that the idea itself of a family tree for poorly known ancient dynasties is dubious, and have pointed the specific problem of trying to connect dynasties. The burden is on you to provide reliable sources (and unfortunately, not all Georgian sources are reliable) to support your claims. On the precise topic of a Guaramid/Bagratid connection, and the link you drew between Stephen III and Adarnase I, you have shown zero such sources. Furthermore, if one is to investigate the articles about those people, no mention of any connection will be found, and the sources you'll find in those articles don't mention any such thing either: Toumanoff and Rapp have actually thoroughly refuted such fantastic genealogies. Now, you double up, and add Archil as Stephen's son/Adarnase's brother: where did you get such a connection? Are you attempting to connect the Bagration to not only the Guaramids, but now also the Chosroids, without any reverence to actual historical research??

Anyway, I'll delete this unsourced mess, and hope that you'll come defend your positions here before trying to reinstall it.Susuman77 (talk) 17:28, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Genealogy:







This is the Georgian sources and it definitely should be included. Japanese monarchs tree is also based on Japanese sources where the first monarchs in the family are "legendary" but are still there in the tree where the Georgian sources are also very important to be presented. GEORGIANJORJADZE 17:36, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that none of these people were "legendary" as in case of Japanese monarchs. The only debate here is whethere they were of Guaramids (Guramianni) or Bagrationi. And this medieval works says that they were Bagrationis. GEORGIANJORJADZE 17:41, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We don't build an encyclopedia based on medieval sources, especially when actual historians who have studied them come to conclusions opposite to yours (see Toumanoff, Rapp, etc.). I see here a fundamental lack of understanding of WP:RS, and especially WP:WPNOTRS, plus a return to your old edit-warring ways. I'd suggest you self-revert your last, as you are already in breach of WP:3RR.Susuman77 (talk) 17:46, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just because Toumanoff and Rapp don't agree on this issue it is not important. This source is very important and none of the people from this source is legendary as such. The only thing Toumanoff and Rapp don't agree is the dynastical family. The Georgian sources say all of those Guramiannis were Bagrationis. This should tottaly be included in the family line. We can have a footnotes on them quoting Rapp and Toumanoff but in the family line it should be definitely presented. As for the edit war I am totally against it and we should discuss first as this is very important source of IX century and not some kind of fairy tale so we should be serious about that. GEORGIANJORJADZE 17:53, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I made Guaram and Adarnase in bold and wrote that it is in Georgian traditional sources a beginning from Guaram. GEORGIANJORJADZE 19:08, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sususman, stop removing my edits. According to Georgian sources they were NOT Guaramiannis but they were Bagrationis. The Georgian tradition of Bagrationis which state they were the head of the beginning of Bagrationi dynasty should be mentioned. GEORGIANJORJADZE 13:37, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sources:


You keep showing medieval primary sources that have been thoroughly discredited and are not used even in modern Georgian historiography (Berdzenishvili...). For a short summary of the current consensus regarding the Bagratids, please take a look at this footnote from Suny's The Making of the Georgian Nation: Google books link. This is clearly referenced on Origin of the Bagratid dynasties. You should stop pushing your medieval POV. Susuman77 (talk) 13:58, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is important source and it must be put in the family tree. Look at the Japanese family tree. The first their monarchs were mythological but they are presented everywhere as it is according to Japanese sources. And here we have real people with real history but their dynastical family is different for some scholars but for this sources from the Conversion of Kartli which is very important source and Life of Bagrationis they were NOT Guramiannis but Bagrationis. GEORGIANJORJADZE 14:06, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK I'll try it one last time even though you just keep repeating yourself. What you're trying to do here with Japan is called WP:OTHERSTUFF, and it does not work. The point in the Japan genealogy, is that they are legendary, everyone knows that and the family tree says it too. Here, what you're doing is different: you're pushing one version of a dynasty's ancestry without mentioning that it is nowadays a fringe theory, and without any regard for the hierarchy of sources. If you refuse to understand that, we'll have to go to a noticeboard, either RS or ANI. Susuman77 (talk) 14:24, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I said that it will be mentioned as in the Japan's family tree that it is accordingly to the Georgian sources and there will be written this or put in footnotes. This is important point of view because all the pretenders of the Georgian throne and all Georgian royals see themselves the ancestors from Guaram who as they see is first Georgian Bagrationi. The Georgian sources only recognize that the first Bagrationi was started from Guaram. This is the Georgian view based on Georgian historical works of IX-X centuries. This must be mentioned definitely. GEORGIANJORJADZE 15:00, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Guaram (+532)
  • Bagrat (532-568), son of Guaram
  • Guaram (568-590), son of Bagrat
  • Stephanoz (591-619), son of Guaram
  • Guaram II (?-678), son of Stephanoz
  • Varazbakur (619- 705), son of Guaram II
  • Nerse (705-742), son of Varazbakur
  • Adarnase (742-779), son of Nerse
  • Ashot (787-826), son of Adarnase

This is what the Georgian chronicles say. They were not Guramiannis but they were Bagrationis.

There's a difference between what pretenders want to believe and what reliable scholarly secondary sources have to say on the matter. You are obviously interested in the first, but Wikipedia is built exclusively on the second. We're not here to accommodate royal delusions of any kind if you/they cannot back it up with reliable research. Susuman77 (talk) 16:39, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And aren't the Japanese royals delusional? Here are the sources which state that they were Bagrationis and this position should be presented in the family tree. GEORGIANJORJADZE 16:54, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The first scholar who discarded the medieval claim that the Bagratid dynasty was a direct genealogical continuation of any previous dynasty was the Georgian historian Ekvtime Takaishvili ("Georgian chronology and the beginning of the Bagratid rule in Georgia". Georgica, vol. 1. 1935). He demonstrated that the first Bagratid to rule in Georgia was Ashot I and not Guaram. Most scholars working in or outside Georgia on the Bagrationi history have since followed this line.--KoberTalk 19:38, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kober, we cannot dismiss the Georgian chronicles as it clearly shows the descent of the Bagrations. Maybe it is controversial for some but we cannot remove it entirely. Here's the image of its descent and those are considered Bagrations by the Georgian chronicles. Jaqeli (talk) 17:47, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Move and updates

[edit]

Dear colleagues! To bring in harmony with vast family line and per WP:TITLECON I've moved the article and linked it accordingly with the lineage of Tao-Klarjeti line. Please share your feedback if there are any other remaining tweaks. Regards, An emperor /// Ave 06:36, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Vakhtang, son of King David IV

[edit]

hi vakhtang was not son of queen rusudan and David iv. please correct the tree. 72.69.60.166 (talk) 20:19, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.30.14.88 (talk) 17:46, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Georgian_monarchs_family_tree_of_Bagrationi_dynasty_of_united_Georgia&oldid=1207390451"