Talk:Sasanian Empire/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Usage

Comment copied from preserved section on the move to "Sasanian Empire":

I cannot really see a pattern of usage between the two forms; as I wrote above, they seem to be used interchangeably. Nevertheless, you do make a valid point: we do not want to make "Sassanid" disappear off Wikipedia if the move goes ahead. We should definitely include both forms in the lede to this article, and personally I will make sure that both forms are used in articles. For article titles, categories, etc, where most of the renaming will be done, I would agree with retaining "Sassanid" for the dynasty and its members, with "Sas[s]anian" for the state, similar to the Arsacid/Parthian differentiation for their predecessors. I don't think we can have this as a guideline since there is no "correct" version, but perhaps, after those who participate in this discussion might express their own views on this subject, we can always point to this discussion as a reference for usage. Constantine ✍ 19:26, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

How the forms will be used is now necessary to decide. The intro at present simply alternates between the two terms, and I haven't even looked beyond that. The internal guideline proposed in the comment above appears reasonable to me, though applying it could be tricky. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 17:06, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, the reasonable thing would be IMO to be internally consistent within each article. For instance, this article or other topical articles like Sasanian architecture etc should use "Sasanian" per their titles, but an article on, say someone like Tamkhosrau or an event like the Battle of Daras could continue to use "Sassanid" and no change would be needed. On the dynasty itself, I would as indicated support the use of Sassanid, but this would raise the issue of consistency within the articles; we cannot have things like "the Sassanid dynasty ruled the Sasanian Empire"... On the other hand, as it has been pointed out in the move discussion, this is largely an arbitrary distinction to make, so I would like to see more opinions on this. Constantine ✍ 19:45, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

The map of the Sassanid Empire

I have seen that people have been going back and forth on this whole thing. With that being said, I have just the thing to solve it all! :)

I have made a more accurate map of the Sassanid Empire and recently put it as the principal image of the article. I hope it stays that way given that it is more accurate than the previous one, :) Keeby101 (talk) 16:46, 14 July 2013 (UTC)(talk) 16:44, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[Keeby101] (talk)

Dear Lord, here we go again. Seriously, simply labelling something as "more accurate" does not make it so. I wish you would take the trouble to at least read the repeated discussions on this above. In short no, your map is not more accurate, it is simply another example of the Iranian nationalists' typical "über-Sassanid Empire" that the whole map dispute is about.--Constantine ✍ 20:03, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

So in short, from the conversations that I have read above, you are also calling HistoryofIran an Iranian nationalist given that you were arguing about whether the Sassanids had conquered all of anatolia or just eastern anatolia. Funny HistoryofIran agreed that the Sassanids DID indeed conquer all of Anatolia in which my map shows that whereas HistoryofIran's map doesn't; presumably because you argued with him about it to the point to where he finally made a map that you were satisfied with, but in truth Idk. HOWEVER, all of the articles and books that I have read about the Sassanid Empire and the Roman Persian Wars CLEARLY show that my map is more accurate than HistoryofIran's map. I wish I could site my sources on this but I do not know how, I have enough trouble using this talk page as is due to it being extremely difficult to use any talk page at all as demonstrated when I made my first post on my user talk page. Bottom line, my map is more accurate, but I do not wish to argure about it for eternity. Also, for the record, I am an American in which I found what you labeled me to be very insulting as I am a very sensitive person. ALSO, I AM SORRY FOR ANYTHING THAT MIGHT HAVE OFFENDED YOU OR ANYONE ELSE! :) Keeby101 (talk) 01:29, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Problem with these maps is that they include places where the Sasanians only had ephemeral control. This is the same reason why the Byzantine maps don't include regions they gained after the 7th century war. An accurate map shouldn't include Dara and Dura-Europos in Mesopotamia. Armenia was contested for most of the time so it can be included. Conquest of Yemen is very sketchy, we don't have a clear view of how Yemen was related to the rest of the empire, it probably never formed a stable administrative region. This is perhaps the most accurate map imo.--Kathovo talk 15:35, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Good find, although the border in northern Mesopotamia (with Hatra, Dura and Nisibis in Roman hands) reflects 3rd and 4th-century realities, not the longer-held post-Peace of Acilisene borders. Perhaps it is time to bring this issue once again to the map workshop, hoping that this time someone will take it up. I would suggest having two areas, one "core" territory (essentially what Kathoo's map shows in solid green) and one "influence/temporary control" area for the rest, including the eastern Byzantine provinces captured in 605-620. Constantine ✍ 15:50, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Hold on Constantine and Kathovo, before you take this to the work shop. I made a brand new map and I want to know your thoughts about it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sassanian_Empire_ca._620_A.D.png

This map depicts territories under firm control shown in Dark Red and territories under ephermal control shown in Light Red. Keeby101 (talk) 03:46, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

As with the map you propose for the HRE, you use such dark colors that they strain the eyes and are difficult to read. They are not improvements on the maps already on the pages. And you ignore every request for supporting citations. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 04:02, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Citations? OH, you mean sources. Yea I know, I keep forgetting to do that and I am sorry, but I did leave citations with the HRE. I put 3 sources to back it up. Also, if my map of the Sassanid Empire is too dark of color to where it strains peoples eyes then what color should I use? I was thinking of using light brown if this is the case. Keeby101 (talk) 04:45, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Nevermind, I got a much better map coming up! One that will not strain anyone's eyes lol! Keeby101 (talk) 04:46, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Aside from the garish blood-red which renders the map unsuitable by itself, the labelling on it is also incorrect. Babylon is not west of Lake Tharthar, "Selucia" is not on the Euphrates, and Arabistan is not south of Adiabene, to point out a few of the errors. I agree with Kathovo and Constantine's proposals on the map. Irānshahr (talk) 08:40, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Like I said before, I got a much better map coming up, and it everything will be correctly labeled on this map. :) Keeby101 (talk) 16:03, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Alright everyone! I told you all that I had a much better map coming up! So here it is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Persian_Sassanian_Empire_ca._620_A.D.png

Note: Debating whether to stick with this map or not, I might make a map that will look somewhat like this:

http://cominganarchy.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2008/01/persia-map1.jpg

In the mean time, give me your thoughts everyone! :D Keeby101 (talk) 03:26, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Congratulations on producing a map of the Achaemenid Empire with some Sasanian-era names interspersed. That still is not the Sasanian Empire, certainly not as far as Asia Minor is concerned, as has been debated to death already. There are a number of links to seriously researched academic atlases in this talk page, which for the purposes of map-making constitute reliable, verifiable sources. I suggest you base your maps on them. And I have to agree with the previous objections to using this red colour.Constantine ✍ 07:01, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Uh NO! I produced a map of the Sassanian Empire and if you want sources for my map, I will give them to you right now!

Source 1: http://www.allempires.com/article/index.php?q=sassanids_byzantines

Source 2: http://www.livius.org/sao-sd/sassanids/sassanids.htm

Source 3: http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/byzantine-iranian-relations

Also, there a few words I would like to quote from sources 1 and 2.

Here is quote of them from Source 1: "In 616 the Persians captured Alexandria and by 619 all of Egypt (to the border of Ethiopia) was once again under Persian rule. In the meanwhile, another Persian army overran Asia Minor in 617 and captured Chalcedon. The Persians held the city for ten years, and were only separated from Constantinople by the Bosporus."

From Source 2: "Khusrau's armies went on to invade Egypt -Alexandria was captured in 619- and in 626, their advance-guards paused only a mile from Constantinople. The Persians even raided Cyprus and occupied Rhodes. It seemed as if the Achaemenid empire was restored, and Khusrau ordered the making of brilliant rock reliefs at Taq-e Bostan."

With that said, you are wrong and I am right! My map is more accurate especially since mine has Cyprus under Sassanid control and to further prove this, take a look at all 3 sources. In fact, I might give you more sources to further back up my claims!

Finally, I have produced a map of the Achaemenid Empire, if you want to see it here it is right now:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Achaemenid_Empire_under_Darius.png Keeby101 (talk) 00:01, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

You note the complaints about the color, yet you persist with this garish red background. Why do you use such a loud color? The object is to instruct, not to blare. The green used on the existing map is much easier to read and doesn't strain the eyes. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 01:01, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

What are you talking about? I got rid of the dark red color and replaced it with the bright red color so it won't stain peoples eyes! Yet you are telling me that the bright red color does the same thing? Keeby101 (talk) 01:08, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

I am talking about your Sasanian map above, here. The red with black text is garish and difficult to read. Why use red to begin with? It looks like a neon sign. The green is softer and much easier to read. Do you see any other bright red maps on this page or elsewhere? (See for instance the numerous maps on the HRE page, all with lighter colors that contrast easily with black text.) Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 01:26, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Alright, I fixed it! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sasanian_Empire_cca._620_A.D.png

The red color is gone, hopefully this color is better for everyone. :) Keeby101 (talk) 05:04, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Keeby, please, please go and read the discussions above (I know you've been pointed to those in muy talk page) about Asia Minor and Arabia, and then please open a number of books, real books, not webpages, about Sasanian, Byzantine, Central Asian, Caucasian etc. history, and read what it says there. Then you can begin creating maps on this subject. Because, for the n-th time, the Persians never controlled all of Asia Minor, even at the phase of their maximum expansion against the Byzantines ca. 620. And they also did not control Transoxiana, Khwarazm let alone Kashgar in the 6th-7th centuries either: this was territory of the Hephthalites until 557, and then came under the loose control of the Göktürks but remained de facto independent city-states until the campaigns of Qutayba ibn Muslim. There is also no evidence I've yet seen that the Persians controlled all of Hadramawt or the southern parts of Oman, Lazica was a Persian vassal and briefly occupied but never part of the Persian Empire proper, Cyprus was never occupied, etc. And these are just the glaring errors of your map that I caught on at first glance. Sorry, but it is truly far closer to depicting the empire of Xerxes than that of Chosroes II. Finally, the orange is scarcely an improvement on the red. Constantine ✍ 16:18, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

If that is the case, I am surprised, actually shocked that you haven't replaced the map HistoryofIran put as the principle image of the article given that it shows Persia having full control over all of the territories that you listed except for Cyprus and Southern Oman and Yemen. Despite that, I have read plenty of real books on the history of Iran and they all say exactly what I pointed out to you above. HistoryofIran pointed this out to you on the discussions above, especially when it came to the Persians controlling Asia Minor. Finally, I have read plenty of Byzantine, Central Asian and Caucasian History! Heck, Byzantine History was the first that I read about especially back when I was still in school. Again I say, my map is far closer to depicting the Empire of Khosrau II in 620 A.D. NOT the empire of Xerxes or Darius, THIS IS:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Achaemenid_Empire_under_Darius.png

So with that being said, obviously there is no way anyone can win this topic as you seem to be aiming for a map like this:

http://iranpoliticsclub.net/maps/images/078%20Sassanid%20Empire%20570%20AD%20Map.jpg

If you don't believe that I have repeatedly read the discussions above, then visit my talk page and then you will know for certain. And when visiting my talk page, answer my questionnaire #3 while you are at it. :D Keeby101 (talk) 16:49, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

I haven't replaced HistoryofIran's map because I am fed up with edit-warring over this. If you have read plenty of books, then please consult them and reference them instead of pointing to websites. HistoryofIran likewise relied on quotes from websites, but on Asia Minor at least I gave him a quite clear rebuttal, and he no longer disputes this. I have given you some very specific points where your map is obviously wrong and why, but you don't seem to take notice. I am not "aiming" for anything other than a map which is realistic, and yours unfortunately is not. Constantine ✍ 16:58, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

In that case, come to my talk page and go to the topic "The Sassanid Empire! New and Improved!" and you will see that I have multiple sources to back up my map being realistic. When I mean sources, I mean not only websites, but actual books as well and I quoted from all of my sources. So with that being said, come to my talk page and see for yourself and feel free to comment on it if you like. Keeby101 (talk) 21:13, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Alright everyone! I am back after a few days of giving this topic on the talk page a rest and I am here to finish this dispute once and for all!! Kathovo and I had a talk on my talk page and we have decided that we would reach a consensus with the other users on a map. If we cannot reach a consensus that we might have no choice but to use WP:DR. Also, I do NOT mean to sound rude when I say this, but allow me to point out to you all where you are wrong and where I am right. From all of the books I have read, when it comes to both the Achaemenid and Sasanian Empires at their greatest territorial extent, they both looked extremely similar IF not the same as each other! The only differences between the 2 in territory is that the Achaemenid Empire had control of Greece and the area around the black sea whereas the Sasanian Empire had control over the Persian Gulf area, Oman and Yemen. That's about it! Nothing more, nothing less! Those are the ONLY differences between the 2 of them! Period!

Here is my map: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Neo-Persian_Empire_ca._620_A.D.png and here are my sources to back it up:

Website Source 1: http://www.allempires.com/article/index.php?q=sassanids_byzantines

Website Source 2: http://www.livius.org/sao-sd/sassanids/sassanids.htm

Website Source 3: http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/byzantine-iranian-relations

Website Source 4: http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/khosrow-ii

Website Source 5: http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/army-i — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keeby101 (talk • contribs) 17:39, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Book Source 1 : https://play.google.com/books/reader?id=-Z8NAAAAQAAJ&printsec=frontcover&output=reader&authuser=0&hl=en&pg=GBS.PA592

Book Source 2 https://play.google.com/books/reader?id=dAdPAQAAIAAJ&printsec=frontcover&output=reader&authuser=0&hl=en&pg=GBS.PA168

Book Source 3

Book Source 4 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keeby101 (talk • contribs) 13:11, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Book Source 5

Book Source 6

Book Source 7

Book Source 8

Book Source 9

Book Source 10

Book Source 11

Finally, there are a few words from Website Sources 1 and Book Sources 1 2 & 3 that I would like to quote:

From Website Source 1: "In 616 the Persians captured Alexandria and by 619 all of Egypt (to the border of Ethiopia) was once again under Persian rule. In the meanwhile, another Persian army overran Asia Minor in 617 and captured Chalcedon. The Persians held the city for ten years, and were only separated from Constantinople by the Bosporus."

From Website Source 2: "Khusrau's armies went on to invade Egypt -Alexandria was captured in 619- and in 626, their advance-guards paused only a mile from Constantinople. The Persians even raided Cyprus and occupied Rhodes. It seemed as if the Achaemenid empire was restored, and Khusrau ordered the making of brilliant rock reliefs at Taq-e Bostan."

From Book Source 1 "During twenty years out of the twenty-five, his career was one of uniform and most extraordinary success : he carried the Persian arms to Syria, to Cappadocia, to Egypt, to Chalcedon on the Bosporus ; captured Daras, Amida, Edessa, Hierapolis, Antioch, Apameia, Damascus, Jerusalem, Alexandria ; overran all Asia Minor ; threatened Constantinople itself."

From Book Source 2: "Thus the whole of the Roman possessions in Asia and Eastern Africa were lost in the space of fifteen years.‘ The empire of Persia was extended from the Tigris and Euphrates to the Egean and the Nile, attaining once more almost the same dimensions that it had reached under the first and had kept until the third Darius.

References

• Rawlinson, George (1880). "A MANUAL OF ANCIENT HISTORY".

• Rawlinson George (1885). "The Seven Great Monarchies of the Ancient Eastern World".

• Rawlinson George (1882). "The Seventh Great Oriental Monarchy".

• Touraj Daryaee (2008). "Sasanian Iran, 224- 651 CE: Portrait of a Late Antique Emprire".

• Vesta Sarkhosh Curtis, Sarah Stewart, University of London. School of Oriental and African Studies, British Museum (2008). "The Sasanian Era".

• John Curtis, Vladimir Grigorʹevich Lukonin, British Museum (2000). "Mesopotamia and Iran in the Parthian and Sasanian periods: rejection and revival c. 238 BC-AD 642".

• A. D. Lee (2009). "War in Late Antiquity".

• Greatrex/Lieu (2007). "The Roman Eastern Frontier and the Persian Wars Ad 363-628".

• Beate Dignas, Engelbert Winter (2007). "Rome and Persia in Late Antiquity".

• Glen Warren Bowersock (2012). "Empires in Collision in Late Antiquity".

Also, I will admit that the first link is a little bit controversial, but it is most certainly not dubious or by any means unreliable either. I will post more book sources to further prove that my map is more accurate if I have to. In the mean time, here is a variant of the map that I made: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Sassanid_Empire_conquests_7th_century_A.D.png this map shows the core territory of the Sasanian Empire and it's territorial conquests in the early 7th century.Still, I would prefer this map: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Neo-Persian_Empire_ca._620_A.D.png as the infobox image of the article because it shows the empire at it's greatest territorial extent despite most of it's territorial gains being ephemeral control. Keeby101 (talk) 03:00, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

I would like to add one more thing. IF I SOUNDED RUDE AT ALL THEN I WOULD LIKE TO SAY THAT I AM EXTREMELY SORRY! I do not have that good of online etiquette to be honest. Peace ☮. Keeby101 (talk) 03:05, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

I have posted in your talk pages several recent academic references that depict the Sasanian empire with the border it had retained for hundreds of years. I have also argued why I believe that maps depicting stable borders that stood for centuries are more adequate for the infobox.--Kathovo talk 13:36, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Keeby, I have written above precisely why your peak 7th-century borders are wrong, and if you have truly read the sources you mention, you would know why, which is why I doubt you have. In the west, any inclusion of Asia Minor east of the Taurus, Cyprus, as anyone who has studied the narrative of the war of 602-628 will know, and as I explained to HistoryofIran in my talk page. "Raiding", "overruning", "campaining in" a place as part of a military expedition is not the same as actually controlling it, still less making it part of a specific state. In the 8th century, the Arabs "raided" and yearly "overrun" Asia Minor far more extensively and over a far longer period of time than the Sasanians did, and were just as far from ever controlling it or making it part of their empire. Plus, when you make so sloppy a work as to add Chios and Lesbos as well, you cannot expect to be taken seriously as regards your commitment to accuracy. In the east, I repeat what I wrote above: Kashgar, Tashkent etc were not under Persian control in Late Antiquity, the Persian border ended on the Oxus, which was the dividing line established with the Turks after the defeat of the Hephthalites ([1], [2], [3]). In the north, Lazica and Iberia, as well as Armenia quite often, were semi-independent vassals of Persia, not integral parts of the Empire, and for Lazica there is IIRC no evidence of a Persian occupation in the early 7th century. Constantine ✍ 16:40, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Map fixed: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Neo-Persian_Empire_ca._620_A.D.png Core territory of the Sasanian Empire is shown in Brown and areas under ephemeral control or overrum by Sasanian forces are shown in Orange. In the Second Perso-Turkic war, the Sasanian Army did cross the oxus river and overran the Gokturks in 619, but that all came to an end with the start of the Third Perso-Turkic War and the original boundaries with the peace treaty of 628 A.D. Keeby101 (talk) 02:44, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Update! I modified the article a little bit. I put this map http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Neo-Persian_Empire_ca._620_A.D.png as the infobox image of the article and I put this map https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:The_Sasanian_Persian_Empire_from_602-620_A.D.png in the "Second Golden Era." section ofthe article. I also put this map http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:The_Sasanian_Empire_on_the_eve_of_the_Final_Roman-Persian_War.png on the Byzantine-Sassanid War of 602-628 article. Reason being is because I believe that it is best to show the Sasanian Empire and all of the territory it raided, occupied and overran shown in the same color. At lest for the infobox image that is. I typed this for the image caption so no one will complain about it, "The Sasanian Empire at it's greatest extent from 619-622 A.D. under Emperor Khosrau II." The territory shown on my map is accurate, but it was only maintained for 3 years until the Byzantaines and the Gokturks defeated the Sasanian Empire and ended the war with the peace treaty of 628 A.D. Keeby101 (talk) 07:48, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

OK, let me repeat for the n-to-the-nth time: the Persians did not, repeat, not conquer all of Anatolia, and in the 7th century did not, repeat did not, control Transoxiana. I've said and analyzed why, and if you choose to ignore that, then that's your problem. Accordingly, both this map and this map show a situation that never existed at any given point, not in 619-622, not ever. When the Persians held most of Central Asia in the East in the 3rd-4th century, they had their "usual" borders in the West, and when they gained their maximum extent against Byzantium (which again, did not include Anatolia, Cyprus etc), they did not control Transoxiana. This is really the last time I repeat this, I am sick and tired of talking to a wall and being called upon to review "corrected" versions that are not "corrected" even one iota. Until I see something more or less accurate, I will remove and/or revert to this, which is about the most realistic of the lot in that it depicts a situation that actually existed (although here again, there is poor research: just prior to the war, the Byzantines still controlled a slice of Armenia between Lake Van and Iberia given to them in 591, as shown here). Constantine ✍ 14:26, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

You can't be serious!? I am getting sick and tired of talking to a wall of solid steel that refuses to even aknowledge 1/3 of the sources I posted on this talk page already! That's it Constantine! I'VE HAD ENOUGH!!!! You CLEARLY did not read anything that I said here: "Map fixed: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Neo-Persian_Empire_ca._620_A.D.png Core territory of the Sasanian Empire is shown in Brown and areas under ephemeral control or overrum by Sasanian forces are shown in Orange. In the Second Perso-Turkic war, the Sasanian Army did cross the oxus river and overran the Gokturks in 619, but that all came to an end with the start of the Third Perso-Turkic War and the original boundaries with the peace treaty of 628 A.D." Even Kathovo would agree and he in fact, did like and agree on using that map. When I made an older version of that map that included the Byzantine Empire in it he complemented it and said on my talk page. "Good job, but I still don't think we should put the map of territorial changes in a war in the infobox". So why can't you just accept this map: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Neo-Persian_Empire_ca._620_A.D.png ?

And you clearly won't accept the fact that YES! The Persian DID in fact cross the Oxus River and conquered Sogdiana in the Second Perso-Turkic War and overran Cyprus and Anatolia and maintained hold of those territories for 3 years!! It is even stated in all of the books that I have cited to which some of those books were written and published by proffessors from the University of Oxford!

For the last and final time I will repeat myself saying that Both the borders of the Achaemenid and Sasanian Empire at their greatest extent were extremely similar if not the SAME with the only differences at all being that the Achaemenids controlled Greece and Black sea territory and the Sasanians controlled Oman, Yemen and Persian Gulf territory!

These were the boundaries of the Gokturk Khaganate prior to the war in 619 A.D.: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Gokturkut.png Both of my maps of Persia clearly shows the territory the Sasanian Empire temporarly occupied for 3 years. I would like to point out one more thing btw. You told me at the beginning of this topic that my map was just another example of Iranian nationalism. Um...HELLO! what you are doing is just another example of Greek Nationalist's typical rewriting history to glorify themselves! The Byzantines and the Gokturks lost the first half of the war so heavily to the point where both empire were about to be absorbed into what became a mirror image of the Achaemenid Empire if you were to put it on a map which my map depicts! The Sassanians and the Avars suffered even more heavy losses and humiliating defeats in the second half of the war to the point where the Sassanian Capital was looted, burned and held by the Byzantines for a few days! And again I say, IF I SOUNDED RUDE OR INSULTING AT ALL THEN I WOULD LIKE TO SAY THAT I AM EXTREMELY SORRY! The only reason why I went that far in this paragraph is because throughout this argument you have not only sounded rudely(My Opinion), but you have also insulted me as well. The first insult was when you responded to my first map proposal and basically called me an Iranian nationialist and there other insults that I could go on about, but I won't.

Either way, since we cannot reach a consensus on this topic and the edit warring will continue as a result! I filed a Dispute Resolution request to end this once and for all! The administrators are going to be the ones who will decide which map will be the infobox image of the article. with that being said! This dispute is permanently OVER! Keeby101 (talk) 00:08, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm not an expert on the Sassanid empire, but in general, relying on 19th century sources and dubious websites is a strong indication of cherry-picking sources to support an existing opinion, not of a careful reading of the best sources to summarise current academic understanding. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:21, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes! I did use 19th century book sources, but with all do respect you conveniently left out the 21st century book sources that I used and cited: Keeby101 (talk) 19:04, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Book Source 3

Book Source 4 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keeby101 (talk • contribs) 13:11, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Book Source 5

Book Source 6

Book Source 7

Book Source 8

Book Source 9

Book Source 10

Book Source 11

References

IGNORE THE 19TH CENTURY SOURCES AS THEY ARE OUTDATED, but do pay attention to all of the other sources which includes the one from 1950. As you can see, most of my sources are from 2000 - present day. :D Anyway,, here is a map that actually is better and more accurate and is more physical than any of the previous maps that have been used: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:The_Sasanian_Persian_Empire_ca._620_A.D.jpg

NOW! Before anyone says anything about it being a map of the Achaemenid Empire, here is an map of the Achaemenid Empire(AKA, the empire that achieved God status in the B.C. era) for you all to look at: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:The_Achaemenid_Empire_ca_400_B.C.jpg

Notice the differences between the two empires at their maximum territorial extents as those are the ONLY differences between them! No more no less! Now, as for this map http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:The_Sasanian_Persian_Empire_ca._620_A.D.jpg let us use this map from now on. It is much better looking than any of the previous maps that anyone has put in the infobox of the article and you have got to admit that it is at least more accurate than this one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:SassanianEmpireHistoryofIran.png especially when it comes to Central Asia and the Caucasus. In fact, to everyone including Constantine, you can use my map and modify it to your liking! But please don't revert or remove it. It's more accurate (than the previous maps) and it looks better especially since it is a more physical map am I wrong? Peace and Cheers! :D Keeby101 (talk) 21:44, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

You've again included all of Anatolia despite Constantine's repeated objections and directions to more accurate, scholarly maps. You cite a long list of works, yet never point to specific page numbers, nor attempt to summarize the arguments they make. So apparently we are expected to go looking for these texts and root around until we find the material you refer to. Constantine links directly to specific passages from well-accepted sources, yet you never address those. And despite being asked repeatedly and directed to talk page etiquette guidelines, you persist in using bolding and all caps -- the equivalent of screaming at people. How many reasonable conversations have you had where one party is constantly yelling? You've been asked repeatedly to find consensus *before* changing the map, yet you continue to ignore that and change the map on your own, while demanding that no one revert it. You are again insistent on trying to "win" your edit war -- a wrong-headed notion, directly in conflict with the spirit and method of Wikipedia. Perhaps Constantine and others will eventually give up out of sheer exasperation, but the real loser will be the accuracy of the article. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 23:10, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Whoa! Now I never yelled or screamed at anyone Laszlo. Where are you getting that idea. Just because I use bold letters does not automatically mean screaming at someone. Also, I have tried to point out specific page numbers, but I do not know how which is exactly why I have this topic on my talk page:

"Need of Help! Citing my sources and how to cite them properly as well as how and where to find the right ones!"

And yes, I got a strikingly similar response to when it came to caps and bold letters and I even said that I won't do that anymore. I just lose temper sometimes and use bold letters and caps. I won't do that anymore on this talk page either. Back to the original topic, I have a thread posted on my talk page that I just cited above and in that thread I stated that I currently have a very difficult time citing the pages of the books. The books are easily readable online and I have read them before outside of the internet and online, but the problem is is that I rented those books from my local libraries and as for online? Well as far as I can tell, unless if someone managed to help me find a way to read those books that I have cited for free rather than paying $160-$250 just to read them online, I can't cite the pages. That is exactly why I made that topic on my talk page for anyone including Constantine to help me find a way to cite those pages and the only I can do that is if I go back to those local libraries, rent the books and read them all over again or buy the books online. If you have noticed, I haven't been active on Wikipedia in days and I came back only yesterday. I am very busy in real life (to which reminds me on a side note, how do I put that on my user page because I have seen others do so as well?) and have a job that takes a ton of my free time away. I can only make these maps in the little spare time that I have. So when I am gone or better yet while I am active on Wikipedia, please everyone help me. I tried to get Constantine to come to my talk page to discuss this topic that I cited above this long paragraph that I am typing to you all, I even tried to get Bwilkins or anyone on Wikipedia for that matter to discuss that topic with me on my talk page and help me and to this day no one has responded to it except for one person who said what you just said to me which is to not use caps and/or bold letters. So I ask you all to please, please visit my talk page, discuss that topic and help me. :( Keeby101 (talk) 00:08, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Update: Actually, looking back I even went on to your talk page Laszlo and asked you to discuss that topic with me and you never responded. Why? Look, all I need is just a little help and that is it. If you guys help me with this, I will never discuss this map topic again. Reason, because when I figure out how to cite those pages and cite them on this talk page as well as quote from them. It will at least help end this dispute. Now, do not get the notion that I have never read any of these books because I have, problem is that I read those books long ago, maybe a year and a half ago to be precise and I do not exactly keep track of page numbers lol. I simply read them and absorb knowledge from them as I stated on my talk page. Still, please everyone contribute to helping me with this. It will decrease tensions between us and any other user that I come across and get into an edit war with such as the bigger edit war I am in with another user on the Megatherium talk page about the date of the Megatherium's extinction. :) Keeby101 (talk) 00:20, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

You are asking me -- no, "everyone" -- to teach you how to do research and cite sources. I'm sorry, but I don't have time to be your tutor, and I have research of my own to conduct in the limited time I do have. You say you are busy but disregard that we are, too. You do not have to link to everything you cite, but providing page numbers is essential. Simply saying, I read it a long time ago does not help someone who wants to look up the source. (Ultimately, WP is a research source to lead others to more comprehensive sources; if you do not cite with precision, it does not help people find information they are seeking.) If the book is online, provide a link. How? Look at how Constantine cites his sources and follow that. Go to tutorial pages (as I have directed you to before) and figure it (like we have had to do). Ask at the help desk where people volunteer to help. How to do research? Google research methodology and read up on the subject. Take some courses -- I've spent years learning to do thorough and precise research. Want an example of how to cite a statement, here you go: "Avoid excessive emphasis: CAPITAL LETTERS are considered shouting and are virtually never appropriate. Bolding may be used to highlight key words or phrases (most usually to highlight "oppose" or "support" summaries of an editor's view), but should be used judiciously, as it may appear the equivalent of the writer raising his voice. WP:SHOUT." I've repeatedly encouraged you to review etiquette guidelines and other wiki-policies (including the page I quote here), but you continue to lose your temper and disregard them. Getting in constant edit wars with people should tell you that you are approaching this improperly. I tried to explain that a couple of weeks ago, but it is simply taking up all my wiki-time and is apparently not helping. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 01:19, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Alright, understood and actually your explanations to me are helping a little. On the bolding and shouting part, I aknowledged all of what you said and stated on my talk page that I will no longer do that. I will not bold or use caps anymore, repeat, will not do that anymore. Now I have not disregarded the pages you have directed me to. At least not all of them, I disregarded the tutorial pages for reasons I have no idea why and I regret it. Truly I do not mean to bold or use all caps. I indeed have a short temper and I will fix that. Now I will go to those tutorial pages when I have spare time and when I figure it out (which will take a while) I will cite the pages as you all have asked Ok. Peace ☮ Keeby101 (talk) 02:41, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Oh dear God, this map is like a nationlist's wet dream. The Sassanids did NOT annex and hold Anatolia any more than the Nazis annexed and held Poland! I want to revert it to something less...terrible...but there isn't anything much better out there. Constantine's proposals have so far seemed the most reasonable to me, but someone really needs to make a proper map. There are plenty of more accurate maps available online, why is it so hard to just base a map off of one of those? Zaldax (talk) 05:36, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I was about to re-nominate this issue at the Map Workshop, but got sidetracked with keeping up with Keeby's antics. I thought about making a map myself, but somehow I feel that I would not be seen as "neutral" enough. Anyhow, I propose we submit this case to the Map Workshop, and hope that it will actually be done this time around. Constantine ✍ 10:23, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Wow....Just wow! I logged off after a few days after creating my first article List of species rumored/believed to still be alive then log back in and were back to square one yet again... If you were to give me a chance to cite my sources I.E. figure out how to cite the pages of those books and then cite them, then you would understand that they did conquer Asia minor. I find it funny how you call it a nationalist wet dream! This article has been subject to attacks, clashes, edit wars from both uber nationalist Greeks such as Constantine and Iranian nationalists such as Xashaiar (presumed). Even Wikipedia Administrator Sowlos agreed on that one and even said and I quote "Many nationalistic and ethnic biases play into the historical revisionism and vandalism the related articles have had to grapple with over the years." I am an American and as a result of that, I am completely unbiased unlike some people on this talk page. Oh, btw Constantine, Laszlo and Zaldaz! Kathovo went on to my talk page and pointed out Encyclopedia Iranica as a credible, accurate and reliable source. In fact several people have pointed out Ecyclopedia Iranica asa credible, accurate and reliable source. I have linked so many books that I have read it is unbelievable (still having trouble citing the pages) and guess what? They all say that YES! The Sasanian Empire did conquer Asia minor and held it firmly for 3 years! With that being said, Encyclopedia Iranica is no longer considered "Dubious" website! HistoryofIran had an edit war with you guys and won! And I will bring will win this edit war to. Here are a few quotes from Encylopedia Iranica: http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/khosrow-ii In 610 Heraclius (d. 641) overthrew Phocas and sought peace once again, but Ḵosrow refused. His armies continued their march in two directions: Šahr­varāz took Antioch, Apamea, Caesarea, Mazaca, Da­mascus, Jerusalem (whence he sent the “true cross” to Persia), and, in 616, Egypt. Šāhēn conquered the whole of Asia Minor, entered Chalcedon after a short siege, and encamped within a mile of Constantinople itself, http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/khosrow-iiOver the following nine years (607-15), the pace of the Persian advance gradually quickened. Key gains were Theodosiopolis, which capitulated once Theodosius was recognized as legitimate claimant in 608, and Edessa, which was captured in 609. Taking advantage of political divisions on the Roman side which climaxed in Heraclius’ usurpation at the beginning of October 610, Persian forces breached the Romans’ innermost line of defense on the Euphrates, taking and holding Caesarea of Cappadocia in the north (611), capturing Antioch and pushing on to the Mediterranean coast in the south (612). They may have been extruded from Cappadocia (in 612), but in the south they defeated a field army commanded by Heraclius in person in 613, occupied Syria and northern Palestine, intervened in Jerusalem to stop a pogrom (614), and were able, in 615, to advance across Asia Minor and appear on the Asian shore of the Bosporus within sight of Constantinople http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/byzantine-iranian-relations the Persians who in the early seventh century conquered Egypt and Asia Minor lost decisive battles a generation later when nimble, lightly armed Arabs accustomed to skirmishes and desert warfare attacked them. Hired light-armed Arab or East Iranian mercenaries could have served them much better. http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/sasanian-dynasty: Iranian troops swept through Mesopotamia, Syria, Palestine (Jerusalem was captured in 614, and the “True Cross” was transferred to Ctesiphon [Flussin]), Cilicia, Armenia Minor, Cappadocia, and the rest of Asia Minor. By 616, they were camping at Chalcedon, opposite Constantinople.

References

I really did not want this to go in the direction it did, but I am glad that I caught this. Hell even Administrator Stephen Schulz agreed that it was hard to cite the pages of the books that I cited. In any case. To everyone, my map is more accurate than all of the maps on Wikimedia Commons. So I am either going to refile on WP:DR or I am going to the map workshop as well and have them review my current map. Keeby101 (talk) 03:55, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Um, sorry, but no. I pointed out that it is hard to find out what you are referring to (because the information you give is insufficient), and gave you an example of how to cite a source. And, looking through the sources, it does indeed seem to me as if you confuse temporary possession during a campaign with "being part of the empire". What's more, you still cite 19th century sources and dubious websites. Take a step back, use good sources only (and preferably ones which talk about the extend of the empire, not its temporary military campaigns), and see what you can glean from them. Note that the Sassanian Empire basically collapsed in less than 10 years after 620, exactly because it was hopelessly overextended and did not exert effective control of the areas it had campaigned in. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 06:07, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Personally, I think it is pointless to continue engaging in conversation with Keeby. He obviously does not want and/or is not able to take any sort of advice. Especially after edits in recent days like this, which I had specifically told him on my talk page wouldn't happen, following it up with this completely ludicrous motion and then seeing his behaviour here, where he threatens and rants against two of the most respected and knowledgeable users I know, I am no longer willing to assume WP:AGF for him. His behaviour has long crossed the boundaries of trolling. Constantine ✍ 07:24, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Ok, have it your way then, but just to let you all know I am willing to take advice as I just did from Stephan Schulz whom I would like to reply to his comment by saying that I do not know how and why those 19th century sources and "dubious websites" appeared on my recent reflist. I did not mean to do so, I only meant to cite the current sources I.E. the late 20th - 21st century books and Encyclopedia Iranica. You think that engaging in conversations with me is pointless then you are dead wrong. You call me a troll and think I am trolling is not the first time that this has happened and obviously were back to square one. I put a request on the Map Workshop for you everyone seeing as no one did such. So when the users on Map Workshop make a new and accurate map of the Sasanian Empire, hopefully it will end this conversation. I was honestly done with this page a week ago.' Now, as for the threatened part? I never "threatened" anyone, but that one user Kansas Bear was coming off a bit rude when I even made such a proposal. I was going to make it where the current articles would be kept and I would create my own article that would have links to those pages. In recent days, I have been working on this article of mine List of species rumored/believed to still be alive and have been basically warring for it's survival. I take a look for my watchlist seeing if the discussion for it's deletion had been closed or not and then I see that this has resurfaced. Personally and in my honest opinion I thought that the conversation that I had with Laszlo on this topic with the last words being: "Alright, understood and actually your explanations to me are helping a little. On the bolding and shouting part, I aknowledged all of what you said and stated on my talk page that I will no longer do that. I will not bold or use caps anymore, repeat, will not do that anymore. Now I have not disregarded the pages you have directed me to. At least not all of them, I disregarded the tutorial pages for reasons I have no idea why and I regret it. Truly I do not mean to bold or use all caps. I indeed have a short temper and I will fix that. Now I will go to those tutorial pages when I have spare time and when I figure it out (which will take a while) I will cite the pages as you all have asked Ok. Peace ☮" was the last of this whole fiasco, but apparently not. I truly could care less about the whole situation on the talk page now. I do not even know what [[WP:AGF] is btw and honestly at this point I could care less. Since a consensus was never reached on this talk page, I took it upon myself to file a new request to either improve my map or to make an entirely new map altogether, one that would be as accurate as possible. YOU ALL CAN THANK ME FOR THAT!! In the meantime, I am going back to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of species rumored/believed to still be alive to try to save my very first article from collapsing. You can engage in conversations with me there where it won't be pointless to do so. Bye! Keeby101 (talk) 01:29, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Woa! I did not mean to do that!

What just happened? The latest section on this talk page is gone, all that I was trying to do was cite my sources properly and get rid of the old sources and now everything is screwed up. Keeby101 (talk) 19:45, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Article size

While making a small edit to this article, I saw a Wiki-generated note about the large size of the article and a reference to WP:LENGTH. I do not feel comfortable taking on this project so I wanted to post a note. --*momoricks* (talk) 02:33, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

True extent of the Great Sassanin empire: The map you guys posted isn't the real one. Here's the actual map of the empire. Fix it please or I will. http://www.fouman.com/Y/Picture_View-Map_Sassanid_Empire.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.255.46.224 (talk) 00:32, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Biased Article

Absolutely no mention of how Persia, before occupying the semites (Babylonians, Assyrians, and Chaldeans and the Phoenicians) had practically no civilization and its sole focus was military building. Also, the Arabs were freeing themselves and their semitic neighbours from Persian rule is a fact that was not mentioned, instead Arabs are only talked about as conquerors. Somehow, and suddenly Persia reaches its golden times during the Sassanid era and after the occupation of Babylonian, Chaldean, Assyrian and Levant lands and moving their capital outside of original Persian lands and into modern day Baghdad, they never mention all the great things they suddenly had acquired and their true sources being from outside of the land Persians inhabited and coming directly from occupied lands. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.68.241.73 (talk) 04:19, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Biased Article (2)

Absolutely no mention of how Persia, before occupying the semites (Babylonians, Assyrians, and Chaldeans and the Phoenicians) had practically no civilization and its sole focus was military building. Also, the Arabs were freeing themselves and their semitic neighbours from Persian rule is a fact that was not mentioned, instead Arabs are only talked about as conquerors. Somehow, and suddenly Persia reaches its golden times during the Sassanid era and after the occupation of Babylonian, Chaldean, Assyrian and Levant lands and moving their capital outside of original Persian lands and into modern day Baghdad, they never mention all the great things they suddenly had acquired and their true sources being from outside of the land Persians inhabited and coming directly from occupied lands. Needs reliable sources goes without saying. Truthsiiker (talk) 20:41, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, reliable sources are always needed. Also, the edit request is for a request with a specific description, e.g., what words you want inserted or removed. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 20:51, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

I would like to see the source(s) that Truthsiiker has that supports his/her statements and how these statements are related to the Sasanian empire. --Kansas Bear (talk) 07:30, 6 November 2013 (UTC)