Talk:Rostam Farrokhzad

The Great Hero

He made mistakes but he is and will always be one of the greatest heroes of Iran. We made so many mistakes; it almost reminds me of America! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Diveh-sepid (talk • contribs) 03:20, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Admiration and Sadness

I feel a great deal of love for him but also a great deal of criticism. He did not have to blind Queen Azarmidokht. Regicide does not help a nation. Mercy on the other hand does a great deal to bring us togher. He was there at a critical moment and he put up his life yet he failed. The result was a thousand years of pain and misery. Ferdowsi medigated some of it but lets face it: Rostam Farrokhzad failed us. He was brave and he gave up his life for Iran. But I don't want his life! I want success. What do we have now? A nation held together thanks to Ferdowsi and the incredible injustices that the West infliced upon us and people lile my grandfather. Iran will live; prosper and be a beacon for decency in a place where the concept is alien. I will be there to watch and promote decency and love for our neighbours.

Untitled

i suggest merging the article 'Rostam Farokhzad' into 'Rostam Farrokhzād' because the title of the latter includes proper diacritics representing an accurate transliteration, as well as the fact that the latter article is more detailed.

I am fairly certain that this fellow and the Rostam of the Shahnameh have little more in common than a name. They are certainly not the same character: one is historical, the other is firmly legendary. It's like mixing up the legendary Greek hero and the son of Alexander. —Charles P._(Mirv) 01:01, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I removed the Shahnameh references. If someone wants to demonstrate, with sources, that the Rostam of the Shahnameh does have more in common with this man than the name, I'd be happy to be proved wrong. —Charles P._(Mirv) 01:05, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

or if this Rostam appears in a different part of the Shahnameh, and that part recounts his battles and his death, then covering that would be good too, as long as it's not confused with the last battle and death of the other Rostam. —Charles P._(Mirv) 01:12, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

read the very last chapter of the shah-nameh. it recounts Rostam Farrokhzad (not to be confused with the hero Rostam, of whom you are thinking) and his death at the Battle of al-Qadisiyyah against the invading Muslim army led by Sa`d ibn Abi Waqqas. i dont have an electronic copy of this, otherwise i'd forward it to you, but you can find it in the excellent french translation by Jules Mohl:

Firdowsī, Abū al-Qāsim. Shāh-nāmeh (Le Livre des rois). Transl. into Fr. and annotated by Jules Mohl. Paris: Imprimérie Nationale, 1976.

alternatively, you can find the specific section that deals with Qadisiyyah in english:

Firdowsī, Abū al-Qāsim. Shāh-nāmeh (‘The Battle of Qadisia’). Transl. into Eng. by Nawab Sir Nizamat Jung. Islamic Culture XIII (1939): 1-20, 134-149.

No one have thought that the real Rostam would've been probably named after the legendary Rostam? Just like many people are named after a national hero or important figures. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Perszeusz (talk • contribs) 23:13, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with this assessment (and its reply that the Shahnameh does indeed also discuss the 7th century general and the battle of al-Qadisiyyah). However, I would suggest to rename the article simply as Rostam (general) or possibly Rostam Ispahbudhan or Rostam-i Farrokh Hormozd. The name Farrokhzad (as used by Ferdowsi), I believe is wrongly associated to this general, as it is the name of his brother (as the article it self make abundantly clear). 79.145.28.93 (talk) 14:49, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Photo caption

Why does the photo caption say bust of a Sassanid king? Is it the bust of Rostam or not? Mr.TrustWorthy----Got Something to Tell Me? 16:51, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Rostam Farrokhzād

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Rostam Farrokhzād's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Al-Tabari 1993":

• From Battle of al-Qādisiyyah: The History of Al-Tabari: The Challenge to the Empires, Translated by Khalid Yahya Blankinship, Published by SUNY Press, 1993, ISBN 0-7914-0852-3, ISBN 978-0-7914-0852-0
• From Muslim conquest of Persia: The History of Al-Tabari: The Challenge to the Empires, Translated by Khalid Yahya Blankinship, Published by SUNY Press, 1993, ISBN 978-0-7914-0852-0

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 20:36, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Rostam Farkhzad is not "Rostam" from the Shahnameh!

There are a couple of places in this article where it is stated that Rostam Farokhzad is "Rostam" from Ferdosi's Shahnameh.

This is a huge mistake that is going to cause a lot of confusion, assuming it hasn't already!

Can anyone even confirm that the picture shown in this article is really meant to be a painting of Rostam Farokhzad and not the presumably fictional "Rostam" from the Shahnameh epic?ClassicHistory (talk) 05:12, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

This is true that Rostam Farkhzad is not that legendary Rostam, also known as "Piltan" and "Tahmtan" in Shahnameh. However, the article does not claim that, and therefore there should be no confusion. "Rostam Farkhzad" is explicitly mentioned at the end of Shahnameh, during the reign of Yazdgerd III, where Yazdgerd orders him to fight against Sa`d ibn Abi Waqqas at the Battle of al-Qādisiyyah:

بفمود تا پورِ هرمزد راه / بپیماید و برکشد با سپاه،

که رستم بُدش نام و بیدار بود / خردمند و گُرد و جهاندار بود

ستاره‌شُمَر بود و بسیارهوش / به گفتار موبد نهاده دو گوش

-- Kouhi (talk) 10:09, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Ok, but this article does not distinguish between Rostam Farokhzad and the character "Rostam". To a non-expert, this can certainly be confusing I think.ClassicHistory (talk) 03:33, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Regarding the template

Pinkbeast, can you please tell me why the template should be in the article of Rostam, what makes him any different from all the other articles of Iranian generals? Is he a significant figure in Iranian history? Or is he not? You apparently seem to know that better than me. Furthermore, this is not really the same thing as last time, since last time I suggested to remove all the templates from articles they have nothing to do with (they still don't), where you said historical figures such as Cyrus were notable, which is not really the case with Rostam. P.S ignoring me/deleting my message won't solve anything, I'm just gonna eventually call an admin, can't be bothered by the disruptive 'revert and hide tactic' that so many users are fond of using. --HistoryofIran (talk) 12:54, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Well, call an admin, then. I don't really have much to add from last time, when you were alone in removing templates in spite of the opposition of other editors, plural, although the answer to "is he a significant figure in Iranian history?" is "yes" - hope this helps. Pinkbeast (talk) 13:06, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Pinkbeast: How so? Please elaborate, since I don't agree with you, and you seem to have lots of knowledge about this topic apparently. Just simply saying 'yes' is not really a valid argument. He is just another Iranian general who fought against the Muslim invasion like many others, there is nothing significant about him really, he is barely mentioned in the majority of academic sources (Cambridge History of Iran, Iranica, etc). Furthermore, I wasn't alone (which can literally be seen in the talk page of Cyrus), and those so called 'other editors' was you and another user. --HistoryofIran (talk) 13:10, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Actually what you'll see there is LouisAragon agreeing it can be kept, but why confuse the issue with facts? Remove it if you must; I don't have the time to deal with obsessives whose response to a discussion outcome they don't like is to come back a year later and do it again. At least have the decency to watch this page for vandalism now I'm out (you won't, so well done "improving" matters). Pinkbeast (talk) 13:20, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Well, that's another way of saying 'I don't have a valid argument'. Also, apologies for being very busy irl, apparently that means I am obsessive and was intentionally waiting a year just to come back. And thank you, the page is in better hands now, because I will actually watch over it (which I have been doing along with other articles for years now tbf). --HistoryofIran (talk) 13:32, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 19 May 2019

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:01, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

---

Rostam Farrokhzād → Rostam Farrokhzad – No need for macrons, we don't tend to use that, at least not on Iranian related stuff. --HistoryofIran (talk) 13:22, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

• Support - Per nom. Its redundant. - LouisAragon (talk) 16:25, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
• Support. Per WP:USEENGLISH as it's not commonly used in English. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:17, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
• Support - Per Rreagan007.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:00, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Parthian background - why removed?

@Lithopsian: why change the more specific "Parthian" into "Iranian"? --Parthavian (talk) 14:22, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

"Parthian" shouldn't be in the lede as it's irrelevant (MOS:ETHNICITY) and we also have to be careful in how we use it since we don't know to what degree the Parthian ethnos existed during this period:

"One wonders how much the Pahlāv generals of the sixth and seventh centuries, whom Pourshariati calls the “Parthians,” knew about the Arsacids of old and what the connection was between them. A dynastic family (Arsacids) who ruled several centuries before to the rise of the Sasanians are not the same as a group of generals and nobility who originated from northeastern Ērānshahr and called themselves Pahlāv." - pp. 245-246, Review of The Fall of the Sasanian Empire to the Arab Muslims: From Two Centuries of Silence to Decline and Fall of the Sasanian Empire: the Partho-Sasanian Confederacy and the Arab Conquest of Iran by Touraj Daryaee

"To end this overview, I would like to make a general comment about the use of Parthian on Sasanian objects. Nearly all the objects with Parthian inscriptions presented herein have characteristics more compatible with the first than with the last century of the Sasanian era. At first sight, the presence of an inscription in Parthian can be explained in terms of chronology. This suggests that the use of Parthian as a language for inscriptions would have ceased in the second century of the Sasanian era, in other words by the fourth/ fifth century AD; and this, in turn, implies that Parthian, after losing its place as a “royal” language, also lost its place as a “common” language. We can adopt the point of view of Gilbert Lazard: Parthian subsisted only in the form of local dialects to the benefit of pārsi, Middle Persian from the south, which was the Sasanian dynasty’s official language. In the north-east of the Sasanian empire, the place of origin of the Parthians, Parthian dialects were wiped out, perhaps deliberately, following the settlement of military colonies that spoke pārsi and that authorities had settled there to cope with invaders from the east. The Persian language that emerged in these areas would, therefore, have come from a form of colonial Middle Persian in the Parthian land.38" - p. 66, The Parthian and Early Sasanian Empires: Adaptation and Expansion. --HistoryofIran (talk) 14:44, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Hmm, well, all that may be true. However, the reason I removed the link to Parthian is that it is a disambiguation page. Articles should almost never link to these pages, and for the special times when they are deliberately linked (eg. hatnotes and see also lists), it should be to a link of the form Parthian (disambiguation). In this case, you should link to the article you really mean by "Parthian"; I'm fairly sure it isn't Parthian Books, for example. Any appearance that I was forcing the link to be Iranian peoples was just because I reverted your edit and that is what was there before. Lithopsian (talk) 15:13, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Citation issue

"Citation error. See inline comment how to fix." Please someone fix this issue — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.164.153.216 (talk) 11:04, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Quotes in the section 'The Arab invasion of the Sasanian Empire'

That section is full of long literal renditions of speech supposedly uttered in conversations which couldn't have been recorded. These 'quotations' are obvious literary inventions typical of pre-modern works of history and any modern historian recognises them as such. Yet the article, in wikivoice, takes them at face value. This is unserious. 62.73.69.121 (talk) 08:21, 27 April 2024 (UTC)