Talk:Shapur I

Shapur, Valerian and Philip

The caption to image Image:Valeriano.jpg says:

Shapur I receives the homage of Valerian (Standing, his hand is hidden in his sleeve as the sign of submission) and Philip the Arab(on his kneels), the Roman Emperors he defeated and took prisoner.

When did Shapur capture Philip? What is the reference for the interpretation of this relief?--Ahrarara 01:53, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Well my reference is also noted on the image's page. It's from the book : Persia An Archaeological Guide by : Sylvia A. Matheson. Persian Savant 23:07, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Stuffed with straw/dung

The article Valerian (emperor) states that Valerian was stuffed with straw after being skined, yet this artical says dung. Which is it? --Ceaser 11:43, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Removal of copyvios

Along with other minor things, my edits of 28 March 2007, address/resolve the following copyvio issues:

1. Most of the text in the "Co-rulership" and "Accession" sections was a direct copy from the Encyclopedia Iranica article on Shapur I.
2. Many of the <ref>s were pointing to a ripped-off copy of the Iranica article rather than to the original. This sort of copyvio'ing is systematic for the site in question, which steals legitimate academic sources in order to present itself as a reliable source.
3. Some of the text in the "War against the Roman Empire" was from "Valerian and Gallienus".

-- Fullstop 09:01, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Here we go again, FullStop can you please stop your POV pushing? Do not remove the entries that are supported by references. You are most welcome to add to the entries, but do not delete them since they are not to your personal taste. As I advised you before try to be constructive than destructive!. ← ← Parthian Shot (Talk) 11:53, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Vague accusations of 'POV pushing' and calling legitimate edits vandalism [1] are anything but constructive. I suggest you stop edit warring here and at Iranian women and actually address issues appropriately. Thanks. The Behnam 14:22, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

It is indeed a tad hypocritical for users to "advise" other editors to be constructive while they themselves prefer to revert edit rather than actually *reading* the changes or (god forbid!) actually discussing what specifically they have a problem with. -- Fullstop 15:41, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Edit War

To Fullstop and Parthianshot: You two should take your personal fight somewhere else, than take on this article! 86.137.146.147 21:08, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Copyvios, false citation and self-promotion may be a trademark of a particular user, but that doesn't by a long shot imply that my edits are anything more than the resolution of the same. Of course, that that user doesn't get it (that my replacement of such inappropriate content is based on objective principles and are not a personal affront) is another matter altogether. -- Fullstop 12:06, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

ps: reverting to a copyvio version is not an improvement.

Dear fellow Wikipedian: If you pay attention and observe FullStop's so-called contributions, you will realise that the only thing that he has been offered to Wiki, is to go around and delete or revert other Wikipedian contributions! I have repeatedly asked FullStop, to engage in constructive debates, before any major changes, in return not only he refused to do so, but also he has taken resolute to insults and accusations. In his limited mental status, the tolerance, negotiations and debate have no meanings, and until he continues with his childish behaviour, unfortunately we have to deal with him in this manner! ← ← Parthian Shot (Talk) 14:32, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

He has brought up legitimate copyright, sourcing, and content issues here and elsewhere. This has been directly related to any deletions. If there is anyone who ignores real discussion and insults instead, it is you, as you have bashed Parsis and Fullstop on a number of pages, including here. You are lying, just like you did with this edit [2], where the source does not mention Iranian women at all. Yet you use it to support extraordinary claims about Iranian women. See Talk:Iranian women where Fullstop has posted a detailed analysis of the problems found in one section, and give a reasonable, non-insulting, non-Parsi-bashing response that gets to the issue. I seriously recommend that you do this because you continue to demonstrate poor conduct and mindless edit warring, and I have noticed. The Behnam 14:38, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I have confirmed that the material removed by Fullstop and The Behnam was a copyvio. There is no use discussing this further. It must be removed. Don't anybody try to reinsert this material, or you will be blocked. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:29, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Analytical adjective in "War Against the Roman Empire

I don't know who wrote this, but the following passage needs to be sourced and rewritten:

Eventually, the Emperor Valerian (253–260) marched against him, but having been besieged in Edessa after a defeat nearby, he was treacherously seized when he attempted to meet for negotiations in 260. Shapur advanced into Asia Minor, but was driven back by defeats at the hands of Ballista, who captured the royal harem. Septimius Odenathus, prince of Palmyra, rose in his rear, defeated the Persian army and regained all the territories Shapur had occupied. Shapur was unable to resume the offensive and lost Armenia again.

Until we have some evidence that Valerian's capture was indeed "treacherous," there's no justification for the word's usage. Further, the next paragraph talks about Shapur's defeat of Valerian, so the entire section reads very awkwardly. I also would like to see some sources supporting the idea that Shapur lost all of the territory he gained, as I'm fairly certain the empire expanded significantly under his rule. Spectheintro (talk) 20:28, 10 December 2007 (UTC)spectheintro

Actually, we do have some evidence Valerian was captured treacherously, it is claimed by Zosimus that Valerian was invited by Shapur I to negotiate, and was then seized. However, testis unus testis nullus, and it seems very unlikely an Emperor would have consented to a meeting in enemy territory with only a small retinue to protect him, to which one might add that Zosimus, though not claiming the Persians used chariots and assorted fairytales, is like many Roman historians ready to implicate the enemies of Rome in any crime to cover up the Roman's own failures.Koechly (talk) 05:00, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

You're a smart guy, so please don't hesitate to fix things yourself. :) I have no idea who wrote that either, but I've removed the "treacherous" anyway since thats quite evidently analytical.

But please don't use the "pov" word. Its not what you think it means, and even so, its not good faith to assume the editor who wrote it had a bias. He/She may have simply blindly copied the sentence from the (copyright-free but outdated) source.

As I said, please improve things yourself when you can, and if you can rewrite the section, then be bold and do so!

Happy editing. :) -- Fullstop (talk) 21:37, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

As far as I know, the Sassanid empire did expand considerably during Shapur's reign - but largely to the east, at the expense of the Kushans. The article only indicates that he lost the Roman territories he had occupied.

As regards sources for the failure to retain occupied territories, Libanius, Eutropius, the Scriptores Historiae Augustae and Jordanes all state that Odaenathus expelled the Persians from Roman Mesopotamia. As for the other areas that Shapur had overrun, in northern Syria and south-eastern Anatolia, within a few years they were being contested between the Romans and the Palmyrenes, with no Persians in sight - see Festus, Eutropius, Jerome, Orosius, the SHA, Jordanes and Zosimus. The only possible ambiguity I can see relates to Sebasteia, Satala and the other places in north-eastern Anatolia listed on Shapur's inscription, simply because these were off the main axis of campaigning in the Roman-Palmyrene war, which ran between Palmyra and Ankara, so that they lie outside the scope of the narratives describing that conflict. Not being a specialist, I am not sure when the earliest references to these places being under Roman or Palmyrene control subsequent to Shapur's withdrawal might be, but certainly there is no evidence that they were ever garrisoned by the Sassanids at all, let alone that any such control outlasted the collapse of Shapur's offensive and the ensuing counter-attacks.

Zburh (talk) 01:56, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Although this article is supposed to be about Shapur, he is only mentioned when the Persians are defeated, while Gordian III is made into the protagonist, a child under the tutelage of his general/father in law Timesitheus and dying suspiciously soon after Timesitheus dies in battle, after which Phillip the Arab takes over. 217.63.243.52 (talk) 15:52, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

"Zosimus, though not claiming the Persians used chariots and assorted fairytales, is like many Roman historians ready to implicate the enemies of Rome in any crime to cover up the Roman's own failures" Zosimus lived in the 6th century. His information was at best second-hand. Dimadick (talk) 08:16, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

That Wax Figure Is Really, Uh...

That wax figure of Shapur is downright lame. From the cheesy clothes, to the bad hair and the face caught in the headlights expression. It doesn't do him any justice. GET RID OF IT! The Angus McBride paintings are much more respectful and heroic.Rawoyster (talk) 07:11, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Pahlavi texts

Disclosure - this was brought to my attention on my talk page. I've reverted an edit based on [3] - as you can say, it states that "This is a short prose work, simple in style, probably written in Pars towards the end of the Sasanian period. It too was the work of priests, and a comparison of it with Firdausi's rendering shows how effectively Zoroastrian elements were obliterated in the Muslim redaction. The Kârnâmag contains some historical details; but its generally romantic character has been explained as due to contamination with legends of Cyrus the Great, still current then in Pars." Mary Boyce, 'Middle Persian Literature' (in Handbuch Der Orientalistik --I. Abt., IV. Band 2., p. 60.)". Dougweller (talk) 19:02, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

also known by the name Sapor

Zosimus calls him Sapor in A New History. Isn't this name worth mentioning, just as the article on Shapur II offers alternate names? Mang (talk) 14:02, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

The mother of Shapur I

Hi, I was wondering why the sources of encyclopedia Iranica are against each other? In two articles it says the mother of Shapur was Murrod:

Brosius, Maria (2000). "Women i. In Pre-Islamic Persia". Encyclopaedia Iranica, Vol. London et al.

Shahbazi, A. Shapur (2002). "Šāpur I". Encyclopaedia Iranica

While from one article it says it was Daneg:

Gignoux, Philippe (1994). "Dēnag". In Yarshater, Ehsan (ed.). Encyclopædia Iranica, Volume VII/3: Dehqān I–Deylam, John of. London and New York: Routledge & Kegan Paul. p. 282.

So what should we write in the inbox? Xani LapZerin (talk) 23:33, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

That's because it's written by different authors. We need to see what other sources say (especially newer ones) to make a conclusion. --HistoryofIran (talk) 23:56, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

I suggest we should write in the that his mother was Murrod or Daneg. Thanks for responding. Xani LapZerin (talk) 00:08, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Sounds like a fair suggestion, I agree, at least until we know more. --HistoryofIran (talk) 00:27, 22 February 2022 (UTC)