Jump to content

Talk:Tiridates III of Armenia

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

Untitled

[edit]

There are quite a few doubtful points"

  1. The link to Chosrow takes you to the wrong person and 2 centuries into the future
  2. The Parthians had been gone for 40 years or so, but are still blamed for everything
  3. Trdat I ruled 'anal.'?

nl:Gebruiker:Jcwf 75.178.177.135 (talk) 01:22, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This entry seems to mix legend with facts

[edit]

One reason Trdat III of Armenia is sometimes referred to as Trdat IV is that another Trdat, perhaps the murderer of Khosrov II, seems to have ruled, firstly Western Armenia and then (after the accession of Narseh as Shah) the whole of Armenia as a Sassanid client state. The story of Gregory, as son of the murderer Anak, strikes one as being somewhat fanciful. It also doesn't explain what happened to Armenia in the period between Khosrov's murder and Trdat the Great reconquest of Armenia, with Roman support. 217.172.65.199 (talk) 21:23, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is the problem of two different dates given for the death of Tiridates. At the beginning of the article, it says 339. At the end, it says 330. According to Rome and Persia in Late Antiquity by Beate Dignas and Engelbert Winter, the date is c. 330. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.143.130.80 (talk) 09:21, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conversion from what?

[edit]

It is striking how much the Armenian editors try to hid any connections to the Iranian culture, while in the reality of the day Armenia is benefitted from Iran, the only neighbor with normal relations. My question is from which religion did Tirdad convert from? Do you say that it was not Zoroastrianism? Do you want to say that the Parthians did not have an Iranian religion, IF you call this a non-zoroastrian belief? What was it? Note that I do not intend to be unfriendly, just something that I wanted to say for a long time.--Babakexorramdin (talk) 23:44, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Take it easy. It was from Parthian Zoroastrianism (albeit a very syncretic version local to Armenia) obviously, very different from the Orthodox one practiced by the Sassanids.-- Ευπάτωρ Talk!! 00:05, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
exactly! My problem is that why Armenians try to avoid connection to thier Iranian legacy? Those from republic of Azerbaijan use it strategically and misrepresent it. Georgians are usually sincere about it but Armenians usually try to hide it. Is it because it is a bad thing to be associated to (by now) Muslims?--Babakexorramdin (talk) 02:05, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what you're talking about. We Armenians today have much more connections with ancient Parthia for example than say anyone in Iran today. Not only do we acknowledge it, we are very proud of it. How many Iranians do you know with names like Karen, Suren, Zareh, Artashes, Narek etc. ? ;) -- Ευπάτωρ Talk!! 02:25, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You have a point in that about the names, but rarely an Armenian in diaspora speaks openly about the Iranian aspects of his Armenianness. It is my experience that they want to show westerners that they are different than their Muslim neighbors and hope to get sympathy from the traditoionally anti-Muslim westerners. But OK.--Babakexorramdin (talk) 10:51, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Most Armenians will continue not to speak about Parthian/Iranian aspects of Armenian-ness, unless they are historians, scholars, or Armenians from Iran (like Vartan Gregorian). It's not about insecurity, though. Many are simply unaware of historic Iranian influence. It might also be because most of their traditional Muslim neighbors haven't exactly treated them with reverence or even respect. TA-ME (talk) 04:16, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
but this. The same Vartan Gregorian, has stated that the treatment of Armenians by the Shia Safavid Iran was generally benevolent--Babakexorramdin (talk) 18:19, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Any way you are right, but in wikipedia the truth should be said. i say this also to the editors from the republic of Azerbaijan. I am unpartizan in this regard.--Babakexorramdin (talk) 10:45, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kingship

[edit]

"For a while, fortune appeared to favour Tiridates. He not only expelled his enemies, but he carried his arms into Assyria. At the time the Persian Empire was in a distracted state. The throne was disputed by the ambition of two contending brothers, Hormuz and Narses. The civil war was, however, soon terminated and Narses was universally acknowledged as King of Persia. Narses then directed his whole force against the foreign enemy. The contest then became too unequal."
This comes directly from Gibbon's The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire but has not been cited or acknowledged as a quote. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stephanie D (talk • contribs) 23:28, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Tiridates III of Armenia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:00, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 19 March 2020

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus. This is a close call, but there is no consensus for the specific move proposed, or for the suggested alternative of Tiridates the Great. Repeated relisting has not brought this discussion closer to a resolution. BD2412 T 00:36, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tiridates III of Armenia → Tiridates IV of Armenia – There was seemingly a Tiridates III who ruled in 287-293 (as shown in the image section of the Iranica article [1]). Also, here is what James Russell states in his work "Zoroastrianism in Armenia, p. 170": "In his inscription at Paikuli, Narseh refers to one Trdat, king of Armenia. Since the inscription was made in 29 3-4, it cannot refer to a Tiridates who was not yet king. Toumanoff therefore suggests that Xosrov was killed by Tiridates III, his brother, the Anak of the legend, who was made king of Armenia by the Sasanians; Xosrov's son, Tiridates IV, escaped to Rome and returned to take the throne in 298." There are lot of other sources who use the regnal number IV for this Tiridates, such as the The Oxford Handbook of Iranian History, The Wiley Blackwell Companion to Zoroastrianism and so on.--HistoryofIran (talk) 01:40, 11 March 2020 (UTC) —Relisting.  — Amakuru (talk) 18:22, 7 April 2020 (UTC) —Relisting. buidhe 05:14, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think Richard G. Hovannisian offers the greatest support for Tiridates IV as he also cites Toumanoff and seemingly agrees with him as in the index of his seminal book, The Armenian People from Ancient to Modern Times (volume 1, page 371), this Tiridates is mentioned as Trdat (Tiridates) IV the Great.--Aram-van (talk) 21:29, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I currently oppose the move. At this point he is much better known as the III so that is his name, really. Unless scholarship changes over time, the overwhelming use is for him to be called the III and this article should reflect that. --RaffiKojian (talk) 03:03, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Also oppose. Whether he was IV or V or whatever is irrelevant. That can be explained in the article. He is universally known as III.-- Ευπάτωρ Talk!! 15:28, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Eh, there was a literally a figure named Tiridates III who ruled before him as I just showed, so what should we do about him? Judging by the sources I posted, this Tiridates (298–330) is clearly not universally known as III. --HistoryofIran (talk) 15:32, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps that should have been "is generally known as", rather than "universally". I point out that we haven't moved all of the English kings named "Edward" just because there were two kings of England named "Edward" between Alfred the Great and William the Conqueror. It would be confusing if Edward I suddenly became Edward III, or Edward VIII suddenly moved to "Edward X". If most sources—especially those written more than ten or twenty years ago, since relatively few people will have only recent sources at hand—refer to him as "Tiridates III", moving him to "Tiridates IV" just because recent scholarship supports the existence of another Tiridates between him and Tiridates II, and giving the title "Tiridates III" to an obscure figure, only recently confirmed to have existed at all, would be almost as confusing. Although I do appreciate the dilemma of what to call "Tiridates II½". P Aculeius (talk) 14:22, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The first two sources (Toumanoff and Russell) mentioning this new Tiridates III are from the 1980s, that's a bit long ago tbf. But yes, my main gripe is what to do with this "Tiridates II½" figure. --HistoryofIran (talk) 15:18, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose This Tiridates, best remembered for converting to Christianity c. 301, is widely known as Tiridates III. [2] [3] [4]
The first two sources you posted aren't RS. So that makes it one source, which is an encyclopedia - that's not "widely known". --HistoryofIran (talk) 15:16, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Encyclopedias are one of the few places people will look for or find information on people like this—and what they call them is pretty strong evidence of general or established usage. I wouldn't go so far as to suggest that variation from one encyclopedia to the next isn't based on editorial preference, but the fact that it occurs is evidence that the article's present name is still current, if not the only version of the name that is. P Aculeius (talk) 06:05, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
On its face that seems to resolve the title of this article, but at the same time, it doesn't resolve what "Tiridates III" should refer to—the problem being that the majority of sources will still use that title to refer to "Tiridates the Great", not to the ephemeral "Tiridates II½". And any article on him, or the research indicating that he existed, needs a title. Should "Tiridates III" take readers to an article about a king they've never heard of, instead of the person usually known by that name? And if not, what do we call him? "Mesotiridates"? P Aculeius (talk) 12:29, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A bit of stretch saying the majority of sources call Tiridates the Great for Tiridates III considering most of the sources listed here so far calls him for Tiridates IV. HistoryofIran (talk)
We can have Tiridates III be a disambiguation page containing Tiridates the Great as well as a newly created Tiridates III (reigned 287–293). Although this would normally fly in the face of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, calling the Great III is technically incorrect so a disambiguation page will help inform our readers about the true nature of the situation. Of course, that requires someone to actually create an article on the other king; in the meantime we can redirect Tiridates III to Tiridates the Great. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 15:00, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Perhaps we should just mention that he's also known as Tiridates IV in the lede, and leave it at that for the time being?
Oxford Dictionary of Late Antiquity (2018)[5]): "The resulting peace treaty (Peter the Patrician, fr. 14) secured Roman influence in Armenia and the return of the Arshakuni dynasty to the Armenian throne through the installation of Trdat (Tiridates) the Great as king. This Trdat (variously Trdat III or Trdat IV) later accepted Christianity and became the first Christian King of Armenia." - LouisAragon (talk) 16:26, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm beginning to agree that the present title is still too current to move the article. this ngram shows that since 1880, "Tiridates III" has been far more common than "Tiridates the Great". Before that it looks like the opposite was true, but the flat lines suggest that there were many fewer references to him in print, so the distinction may be a bit illusory. But in any case, the issues need to be addressed in the lead, with something along the lines of "Tiridates III, also known as Tiridates the Great, or sometimes Tiridates IV, to distinguish him from an [[earlier Tiridates]] who is thought to have reigned several years earlier...". I use the words "sometimes" and "is thought to" because Tiridates II½'s existence is still largely a matter of inference and interpretation. Unless I misread what the nominator says at the beginning of this discussion, there's still no contemporary account that explicitly states that there was another Tiridates between Tiridates II and Tiridates the Great, and while modern historians are beginning to assume his existence and account for his numbering, the vast majority of published sources going back over a century still call the subject of this article "Tiridates III".
As for what to call the article about Tiridates II½, I think that King of Hearts is on the right track: using dates instead of a regnal number. However, the dates seem to be approximate, and would need to account for that. If we don't know that his reign began in 287 and ended in 293, it needs to say circa or c. It would be fine to say circa 287–293 instead of circa 287–circa 293, in my opinion, since parallel construction would normally be used here, and any ambiguity can be addressed in the article text. The lead in this article also needs to be described as approximate, for that matter: right now it states that Tiridates III was born in 250 and died in 330, but the infobox says he was born some time in the 250's, and died circa 330. If the dates are approximate, they need to be clearly shown to be approximate in the lead, not given as exact years. I'm going to go ahead and make a couple of these edits, pending the resolution of this discussion, which might or might not call for a different solution. P Aculeius (talk) 13:13, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I think the most reliable sources now prefer IV over III because they accept the existence of another Tiridates between 287 and 298. This is without prejudice to whether the current title remains a primary redirect or becomes a dab page. It should not become the page for another monarch. Srnec (talk) 20:30, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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. No further edits should be made to this section.

Religion and fanatism

[edit]

Maybe I'm wrong, but Zoroastrism is the first monotheistic religion (that still alives), so if Tiridates was zoroastrian, how he can pray other gods like Anahit? He was syncretic?

And is true his christian fanatism? because there is a lot of black legends about new christians, in the beginning they were good pagan kings and then became tyrannical and cruel christian kings. 83.58.26.168 (talk) 18:06, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tiridates_III_of_Armenia&oldid=1194500534"