Talk:Kingdom of Armenia (antiquity)

Comment

Comment on population 9 Nov 2010: "How come the population would be 30 million? Even today with a population boom, population of the whole area shown in the map is probably half of that. It might be written in a book, but does not mean that the figure is credible." (End)

How could have Greater Armenia been "independent" kingdom after Tigran the Great lost?! There has been several treaties between Rome/Byzantum and Parthia/Persia over Armenia -- it has become a vassal state since c. 65 BC, and was only independent from about 95 BC -- so for 30 years. The periods after 66 BC it was a vassal. --AdilBaguirov 17:04, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

The dates seem to be wrong, maybe someone can fix it soon. Artaxiad 20:56, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

the dates would be wrong when the only two sources cited are both Armenian. Let me help you:

Greater Armenia was independent until 428 AD. "Under Tigranes, Armenia ascended to a pinnacle of power unique in its history and became, albeit briefly, the strongest state in the Roman east. Extensive territories were taken from the kingdom of Parthia in Iran, which was compelled to sign a treaty of alliance. Iberia (Georgia), Albania, and Atropatene had already accepted Tigranes' suzerainty when the Syrians, tired of anarchy, offered him their crown (83 BC). Tigranes penetrated as far south as Ptolemais (modern 'Akko, Israel).

Although Armenian culture at the time of Tigranes was Armenian, as it had been and as it was fundamentally to remain for many centuries, Hellenic scholars and actors found a welcome at the Armenian court. The Armenian empire lasted until Tigranes became involved in the struggle between his father-in-law, Mithradates VI Eupator of Pontus, and Rome. The Roman general Lucius Licinius Lucullus captured Tigranocerta, Tigranes' new capital, in 69 BC. He failed to reach Artashat, but in 66 BC the legions of Pompey, aided by one of Tigranes' sons, succeeded, compelling the king to renounce Syria and other conquests in the south and to become an ally of Rome. Armenia became a buffer state, and often a battlefield, between Rome and Parthia.

The Culture was Armenian not Iranian, Armenia wasn't "Maneuvering" but fighting, gained a reputation for their bravery, Plutarch wrote that the Armenian archers could kill from 200 meters with their deadly accurate arrows. "Both Rome and Parthia strove to establish their own candidates on the Armenian throne until a lasting measure of equilibrium was secured by the treaty of Rhandeia, concluded in AD 63 between the Roman general Gnaeus Domitius Corbulo and Tiridates (Trdat), brother of the Parthian king Vologeses I. Under this treaty a son of the Parthian Arsacid dynasty, the first being Tiridates, would occupy the throne of Armenia but as a Roman vassal. A dispute with Parthia led to Armenia's annexation by the Roman emperor Trajan in 115 or 116, but his successor, Hadrian, withdrew the frontier of the Roman Empire to the Euphrates. After the Roman emperor Caracalla's capture of King Vagharshak and his attempt to annex the country in 216, his successor, Macrinus, recognized Vagharshak's son Tiridates II (Khosrow the Great in Armenian sources) as king of Armenia (217). Tiridates II's resistance to the Sasanid dynasty after the fall of the Arsacid dynasty in Persia (224) ended in his assassination by their agent Anak the Parthian (c. 238) and in the conquest of Armenia by Shapur I, who placed his vassal Artavazd on the throne (252). Under Diocletian, the Persians were forced to relinquish Armenia, and Tiridates III, the son of Tiridates II, was restored to the throne under Roman protection (c. 287); his reign determined the course of much of Armenia's subsequent history, and his conversion by St. Gregory the Illuminator and the adoption of Christianity as the state religion (c. 314) created a permanent gulf between Armenia and Persia." http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-44268/Armenia

From Columbia Encyclopedia, based fully on Armenian sources: " The Romans distinguished between Greater Armenia and Lesser Armenia, respectively east and west of the Euphrates. Tiridates, a Parthian prince, was confirmed as king of Armenia by Nero in A.D. 66. Christianity was introduced early; Armenia is reckoned the oldest Christian state.

Instead of wondering, you should read carefully -- from Britannica and Columbia Encyclopedias. No one ever disputes the fact that Armenia was always an independent state including Tigranes the Great's reign, who was of Armenian origin.

The Map

The map is correct.

The country names

The coastal cities of Byblos, Tyr, etc. are part of present day Lebanon which is not represented in the flags of the countries.

Seleucid destruction in 190 BC?

This article at the beginning mentions that the kingdom was founded in 190 BC after the desctruction of the Seleucid Empire. They weren't destroyed for another 130+ years. They were beaten by the Romans, yes, but not destroyed or even close. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.125.109.218 (talk) 00:43, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree. I believe the Seleucids had merely lost their influence over Armenia at that time, and were conquered by Tigranes the Great at a later date. See the article about the Artaxiad Dynasty. --Davo88 (talk) 04:23, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Population

I think it highly unlikely that such a small area kingdom would have such a large population no later than 400 AD. UltimateDarkloid (talk) 19:17, 3 December 2010 (UTC) It wasn't small-during Tigranes the Great it was 3000000 km2

Is there a source for the population figures? I'll continue to do some research, but if none can be found, I will remove them in a couple weeks. Jlr3001 (talk) 13:09, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Recent edits

The latest version of this article does not respect Wikipedia standards. Please provide references and wikify the text. Also, the "Origins" section is too long. Thank you.--Davo88 (talk) 19:03, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Deleted bad contents

I removed all the contents added in the last two months. The material was very low quality (POV, reads like a middle school research, unsourced) and anyway it should have gone to a different page, this one is about the 190BC-387AD Kingdom of Armenia while the removed material referred to all the History of Armenia. I don't think there was anything who could be salvaged, the existing pages (like Orontid dynasty) are already more detailed and better written and sourced, and most of the kings who were improperly listed here have their dedicated page with a lot more sourced information. GhePeU (talk) 23:04, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

So, apparently User:Aram-van is going to keep readd that contents indefinitely, and apparently he is not even going to discuss it in this Talk Page. What's the procedure now? 82.52.180.115 (talk) 17:47, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree the edits were not an improvement and I have reverted. This is the article about the historical kindom. The article for Armenian irredentism etc. would be at Greater Armenia. --dab (𒁳) 18:40, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Requested move 1

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.

The result of the move request was: page moved, and then moved again to Kingdom of Armenia (antiquity) per proper capitalisation. ukexpat (talk) 23:28, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

---

Kingdom of Armenia → Kingdom of Armenia (Antiquity) — The Kingdom of Armenia can refer to any of the following kingdoms: Orontid Kingdom of Armenia, Artaxiad Kingdom of Armenia, Arsacid Kingdom of Armenia, Bagratid Kingdom of Armenia, Armenian Kingdom of Cilicia, therefore, this article should be a page that lists all of the Armenian kingdoms (like a disambiguation page) rather than link it to only one (Artaxiad/Arsacid) of the many kingdoms.--Kentronhayastan (talk) 19:51, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

The basic goal of the move is to give a more accurate understanding of the history of Armenia, since "Kingdom of Armenia" is ambiguous, and can refer to many different kingdoms throughout the history of Armenia. That's why I believe it is correct to include the name of the era (i.e. Aniquity, Middle Ages, etc.) in parentheses to specify the kingdom of Armenia at the appropriate time in history, and use this article (Kingdom of Armenia) as a list (like a disambiguation page) that lists all of the kingdoms in the form of:

Kingdom of Armenia may refer to any of the following Armenian states in history:

• Orontid Armenia
• Artaxiad Armenia
• Kingdom of Sophene
• Kingdom of Commagene
• Arsacid Armenia
• Bagratid Armenia
• Armenian Kingdom of Cilicia

Kentronhayastan (talk) 21:33, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Be that as it may, the ancient kindom is still the primary referent of the term "Kingdom of Armenia". Also, whatever happened to seeking consensus before implementing moves? Your move also broke plenty of links. --dab (𒁳) 18:28, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

• Comment Why was this page moved before the discussion closed? And why hasn't any of the 360+ dablinks been fixed before the move per WP:FIXDABLINKS? This is now the most-linked disambiguation page in EN Wikipedia; this list shows them all. --JaGa^talk 22:26, 3 January 2011 (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. No further edits should be made to this section.

Please note that I did not make the original move to Kingdom of Armenia (Antiquity); I moved it from there to Kingdom of Armenia (antiquity) per proper disambiguation naming. A bot should fix the double redirects pretty quickly. – ukexpat (talk) 04:11, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

yes, but no bot is going to fix the links to Kingdom of Armenia that have been in place for years. What's with all the recent article moves without proper discussion? I don't mind the move too much, but either take responsibility and fix all links manually, or else put it back the way it was. Unsurprisingly, this move is closely associated with subtle attempts to suggest that Urartu is somehow "known as" Kingdom of Armenia.[1] This is of course nonsense. There are strictly two articles to be disambiguated, Kingdom of Armenia (antiquity) (the primary topic by far), and Kingdom of Armenia (medieval). A single hatnote would have been enough. --dab (𒁳) 13:49, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Discussion at WP:FTN

This article is being discussed at Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard#Kingdom of Armenia. Be aware that if people continue to make large reverts before consensus is reached here, admins may fully protect the article. Anyone who has strong views about the proper scope of this article is urged to take part in the move discussion and offer their reasoning. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 20:57, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I believe the discussion at Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard#Kingdom of Armenia was about the Safrastyan user about inaccurate edits to the article, not about the discussion about moving the article (judging by the date the user posted it, and the edits that were being made then). Kentronhayastan (talk) 21:34, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

of course, your move is perfectly arguable. I am not convinced it was the best solution, but it certainly isn't a case for WP:FTN :) --dab (𒁳) 18:34, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Merge Kingdoms of Armenia from Antiquity and Middle Ages in Kingdom of Armenia

I had originally disambiguated the Kingdom of Armenia into Antiquity and Middle Ages (executed terribly, completely the fault of my ignorance of how Wikipedia worked, I apologize). Now I believe it would be better to have one article for both: Kingdom of Armenia. Its history would have a gap between 428 and 884 of foreign rule (Sassanid and Arabic). This is much like the Byzantine Empire, which fell in 1204 until reformed in 1261, yet it's still one article. Sure, the gap is much larger, but does it matter? I want others' opinion.Kentronhayastan (talk) 03:20, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

• comment I don't really have a solid opinion. You are right with the Byzantine Empire. Another example would be Iran, which has separate articles for the different dynasties: Achaemenid Empire, Parthian Empire, Sasanian Empire, Timurid dynasty, Safavid dynasty, Afsharid dynasty, Zand dynasty, Qajar dynasty, Pahlavi dynasty.

What if we create an article Armenia Major instead of Kingdom of Armenia? In Armenian historiography, the term Mets Hayk is used for the four dynasties (Yervanduni, Artashesyan, Arshakuni, Bagratuni). Just a thought. --Երևանցի ^talk 03:55, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Armenia Major, though, is a name many people don't like to use. I had attempted to use that name for the kingdom in antiquity but various people always changed it to Kingdom of Armenia. It seems people prefer to select the name that includes the type of government (kingdom, empire, republic, etc). Besides, Armenia Major was more of a geographic name to differentiate it from the other Armenian regions of Armenia Minor and Sophene (think of Greater Armenia and Lesser Armenia; today we just simply call it "Armenian Highland"). It was also used to refer to the kingdom, but that's much like China or the Kingdom of Italy adopting the regional name rather than the name of the majority ethnic group. I think Kingdom of Armenia must still be a broad article like a glorified disambiguation page without a country infobox because it covers a period with several foreign rule (successors and predecessors would be too confusing). We could include the country infobox in the articles for the dynasties much like Byzantine Empire and Byzantine Empire under the Macedonian dynasty, Komnenos dynasty, Angelos dynasty, etc. Or maybe we should just leave it as it is now... Kentronhayastan (talk) 18:46, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

• There is absolutely no political continuity between the Kingdom which ceased to exist in 428 and the one that arose in 884, linking them together is absurd and ahistoric. Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 17:36, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Requested move 2

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. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 18:35, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

---

Kingdom of Armenia (antiquity) → Greater Armenia – The term "Kingdom of Armenia" is very vague. It can refer to any kingdom that ruled Armenia (Orontid, Artaxiad, and Arsacid and also Bagratid Armenia and Cilician Armenia). Adding "antiquity" in the title doesn't make it any better.

"Greater Armenia", on the other hand, is much more used in academia.

• Suren Yeremian, see Soviet Armenian Encyclopedia vol. 7 pp. 434-435 "Մեծ Հայք, Հայաստանի հիմնական տարածքի և նրանում ձևավորված հին հայկական թագավորության անվանումը" "Greater Armenia, the name of the main part of Armenia and the kingdom that emerged there"
• Institute for Armenian Studies of Yerevan State University [2]
• Oxford University
• Robert Hewsen (author of Armenia: A Historical Atlas) calls the kingdom "Greater Armenia" through his book.
• Encyclopædia Iranica [3] Երևանցի ^talk 22:58, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose "Greater Armenia" is used to describe a current day concept, and is much more likely to be perceived to be about such. If you want a rename it should be Greater Armenia (kingdom) or somesuch. Indeed the target "Greater Armenia" is a disambiguation page, and I see very low utility in merging that as a hatnote into this article. Armenia Major would prove to be better as well, considering Armenia Minor -- 70.24.244.51 (talk) 07:46, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose per IP. "Greater Armenia" sounds like a modern irredentist claim, and indeed it is. And because the proposed title is a dab, you'll need to make WP:PRIMARYTOPIC claims. --BDD (talk) 17:31, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

I think you missed the point. Greater Armenia (political concept) has long been moved to United Armenia. I'm not the one who should make WP:PRIMARYTOPIC claims. Take a look at the sources. Clearly, academic sources use the term "Greater Armenia" for the kingdom, not the concept. --Երևանցի ^talk 21:34, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out the former; someone should have updated the dab. But you do need to make primary topic claims if you want to move an article over a dab, because the status quo is no primary topic for the term. And as someone was bound to point out anyway, this move also necessitates a move of Greater Armenia to Greater Armenia (disambiguation). --BDD (talk) 23:43, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

The academic sources given above are more than enough to make it clear. It should either be simply "Greater Armenia" (as in most sources) or "Kingdom of Greater Armenia" (per Oxford Univ.). No academic source uses the term "Kingdom of Armenia" for this state. --Երևանցի ^talk 00:17, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

The academic sources you chose only deal with history, not with the modern day socio-political environment. Looking from Google News, [4] you can see it is focused predominantly on the modern day concept. Indeed if you include the news results from the end of the 19th century, early 20th, those also deal with the same socio-politcal concept. -- 70.24.244.51 (talk) 04:58, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

"Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia" = Academic sources > News. The use of "Greater Armenia" in this concept is by far more common than the nationalist concept. Come back with better arguments. --Երևանցի ^talk 05:04, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a history book WP:NOT. We do not deal solely with what was, but what is now as well. Your academic sources focus solely on the historical, clearly this sample of academic sources is biased because they are from the field of history. Considering the balance of news sources, and that there are academic sources [5] that pertain to the socio-political concept, and have been for decades, there is no primarity for your choice. News sources that are reliable sources count in determining what a primary topic is if the news sources document continuing dominance of a particular topic, and not just a spike in dominance, which the news sources do, continuing dominance of the socio-political concept for decades. Indeed your choice of using only "academic sources" is not borne out with WP:PTOPIC, where reliable sources are used to determine primarity, not just academic sources. Kingdom of Greater Armenia seems acceptable though. -- 70.24.244.51 (talk) 05:13, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

If you consider news outlets more reliable than academic sources I have no reason to continue this discussion. --Երևանցի ^talk 05:17, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

If you consider that WP:RS news sources have no value, there wasn't much point in your rebuttal. -- 70.24.244.51 (talk) 05:55, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

"No value" is your misinterpretation. I clearly stated that academic sources are more preferable than newspapers. You seem to ignore this part. --Երևանցի ^talk 06:09, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose The current article covers Orontid, Artaxiad and Arsacid Armenia just fine and while the Kingdom itself was known as Greater Armenia/Armenia Major to distinguish it from Lesser Armenia, today this designation is primarily used within academic circles, those that are unfamiliar with the subject at hand will clearly get confused. The article in its current form just needs to address this somehow in the intro. Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 17:41, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Eupator, can you show me some academic sources that use the exact form "Kingdom of Armenia" for Mets Hayk? --Երևանցի ^talk 21:34, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

On the first page alone of the Google books hit:[6]. Two are for Bagratid Armenia, one for Cilicia, 7 for Greater Armenia (two also referencing Lesser Armenia). Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 07:20, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

You realize all those books are from the 19th century? The only new book that uses "Kingdom of Armenia" is Mack Chahin's 2001 book, but it also includes Bagratid Armenia and Cilician Armenia under Kingdom of Armenia. You prefer to ignore the Soviet Armenian Encyclopedia and all the other sources given above? --Երևանցի ^talk 16:24, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose - as BDD and the IP user. --Rushton2010 (talk) 01:51, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Before voting oppose, I suggest you read their arguments and my replies to them. The nationalist concept is not a primary topic and has never been. The academic sources provided by me are more than enough to prove that. --Երևանցի ^talk 01:54, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose the current title is more meaningful to the general reader, as the current article does cover the period of classical antiquity, to many people "Greater Armenia" might suggest a geographical rather than a historical concept. PatGallacher (talk) 20:49, 21 November 2013 (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.

Edit Warring on Dates and Van as capital (User:198.228.216.35)

The information you are suggesting to change has been in place since 2011, and even prior to this is was 190 BC. If you believe this to be incorrect, you can make an edit, but if your edit is reverted, please to not begin an edit war. Discuss it here first. The Kingdom of Armenia began around 321 BC.

The dates overlap

Extending the date of the Kingdom of Armenia to 553 BC would make its dates overlap with its predecessor Satrapy of Armenia. You claim the dates that were there before your edits also overlap, but the Satrapy of Armenia (Armina) ended in 331 BC, and 10 years later, the Kingdom of Armenia was formed from it in 321 BC. How does this overlap? What you are suggesting is similar to using the dates 509 BC– 476 AD for the Roman Empire instead of 27 BC–476 AD by including the dates 509 BC–27 BC of its predecessor Roman Republic.

The word "satrapy" is included in the title

That's because the Kingdom was sometimes demoted to a Satrapy for brief periods in its history.

The capital of the city was Van

The Orontid Capitals were Armavir and Yervandashat, not Van. Van was the capital of Urartu, so it's likely it was also the capital of the Orontids for some time, but there is no evidence for this. Van was never the capital of the Kingdom of Armenia. The state mentioned in the legendary/traditional history of Armenia was the Kingdom of Van (Urartu).

It is mentioned in many places that Armenia began in 6th century BC

Yes it is, and it did. 6th century BC is the first time the word "Armenia" was recorded, not as a Kingdom, though. This article is about the Kingdom which undoubtedly began in 190BC and can be argued to have begun as far as 321BC earliest. Prior to that, it is unquestionable that there was no Kingdom of Armenia, but a province (satrapy) of Persia called Armenia. It began as a Satrapy of Achaemenid Persia in the 6th century BC (which is why we have the article Satrapy of Armenia), which then became an independent kingdom in 321BC (which is what this article is for).

Please address these four points before reverting. Thank you.Kentronhayastan (talk) 23:29, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

References

Protected edit request on 10 May 2014

A request to protect the page was submitted to prevent an unregistered user from edit warring, however, it has been fully protected so as to only be edited by Administrators. The unregistered user was using inaccurate dates and including a city as capital which is completely inaccurate. This information had remained unchanged and accepted since 2011. The user who protected the page reverted it to a version that still includes the inaccuracies. I have made a request on the page of the person who protected the article, but just in case, I am making a request here as well.

These is the information that should be changed (all inside the Infobox former country):

Incorrect:
|date_pre = c. 533 BC
Correct:
|date_pre = c. 321 BC

Incorrect:
|capital = [[Van, Turkey|Van]] <br /> [[Armavir, Armenia|Armavir]] <small>(321–302 BC)</small> <br /> [[Yervandashat]] <small>(302–189 BC)</small> <br /> [[Artashat]] <small>(189–77 BC; 60–120 AD)</small> <br /> [[Tigranocerta]] <small>(77–69 BC)</small> <br /> [[Vagharshapat]] <small>(120–330)</small> <br />[[Dvin]] <small>(336–428)</small>
Correct:
|capital = [[Armavir, Armenia|Armavir]] <small>(321–302 BC)</small> <br /> [[Yervandashat]] <small>(302–189 BC)</small> <br /> [[Artashat]] <small>(189–77 BC; 60–120 AD)</small> <br /> [[Tigranocerta]] <small>(77–69 BC)</small> <br /> [[Vagharshapat]] <small>(120–330)</small> <br />[[Dvin]] <small>(336–428)</small>

(remove the '[[Van, Turkey|Van]] <br />' only)

Thank you, Kentronhayastan (talk) 15:21, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 15:39, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Reliable sources:

• Encyclopaedia Iranica [7] (section 2. The Hellenistic period)

"A Macedonian, Neoptolemus, is mentioned as holding the office soon after Alexander’s death in 323 B.C. but there are indications that he failed to quell an Armenian revolt, which may have been led by the former satrap Orontes. Reports speak of the reappearance of Orontes in 316 B.C. when he was on good terms with the Macedonian generals Eumenes and Peucestas (the satrap of Persis), and add interestingly that he used Aramaic in his correspondence with Eumenes (Diodorus 19.27.3; Polyaenus, Strategmata 4.8.3). Toward the beginning of the 3rd century B.C., a certain Ardoates (probably a misspelling for Aroantes or Aroandes, see J. Marquart, Untersuchungen zur Geschichte von Eran I, Leipzig, 1895, p. 27 n. l23) is mentioned with the title “king of Armenia”"

• Kingdom of Armenia, Mack Chahin [8]] Page 185–190

"In 366 BC, Ervand [Orontes] who was hereditary satrap [not king] of Armenia [...]"

Indicates that at 366BC, the Orontids were hereditary satraps (not kings) of Armenia. Their history is part of the predecessor state Satrapy of Armenia.

"A précis of Ervand's reign should highlight the fact that while his predecessors were true Persians and absolutely faithful to the Great King [of Persia], Ervand [...] could have had no such loyalties[...]"

Indicates that his predecessors were subjects (satraps) of the Great King.

"Ervand II's son, Ervand III [reign 317-260BC), [...] is, however, mentioned by Diodorus (21.19) as 'King'."

He's not referred to as satrap, but as "king."

Timeline on page 277:

530–331BC - First Achemenian [Persian] satrapies in Armenia, under Cyrus the Great (530 BC) to the end of the Achaemenids (331BC).

c.330–190BC - The royal house of Orontes, second monarchy of Armenia.

• A History of Armenia, Vahan M. Kurkjian [9] Page 52

"Through the Macedonian conquest and the subsequent Seleucid dominion in Hither Asia, there opened for the Armens a new era of political and economic advancement, which lasted 140 years – from 330 to 190 B.C., at which latter date the kingdom of Artaxias (Artashes) and Zariadres (Zareh) were founded."

The conventional date of the Kingdom is 190BC (when the Artaxias dynasty freed Armenia from Alexander's Empire), but there is evidence (as mentioned in the article), that the Orontids had promoted themselves from Satraps to Kings in the late 4th century BC.

• Encyclopaedia Britannica [10]

"'Xenophon’s Anabasis, recounting the adventures of Greek mercenaries in Persia, describes the local government about 400 bce as being in the hands of village headmen, part of whose tribute to the Persian king consisted of horses. Armenia continued to be governed by Persian or native satraps until its absorption into the Macedonian empire of Alexander the Great (331) and its successor, the Seleucid kingdom (301).'"

Indicates that until around 331 BC, the rulers of Armenia were still satraps (hence the predecessor Satrapy of Armenia, not kings which this article refers to.

"After the defeat of the Seleucid king Antiochus III (the Great) by Rome at the Battle of Magnesia (winter 190–189 bcd), his two Armenian satraps, Artaxias (Artashes) and Zariadres (Zareh), established themselves, with Roman consent, as kings of Greater Armenia and Sophene, respectively, thus becoming the creators of an independent Armenia."

This passage indicates that the Kingdom of Armenia began, without a doubt, in 190BC, not 553BC as the IP edit suggests. The fact that it began in 321 BC (which are the dates mentioned until the IP's edits) can be argued.

• Armenian-History.com (same as earlier A History of Armenia by Vahan M. Kurkjian) [11], [12]

"Armenia is described by Xenophon as a vast and rich country, with Orondas(Orontes) (Erouand, Ervanduni) ruling as satrap"

"Through the Macedonian conquests and the subsequent Seleucid domination in Hither Asia, there opened for the Armens a new era of political and economic advancement, which lasted 140В years from В 330 to 190В B.C."

I can provide more, but I believe this is satisfactory for now. Kentronhayastan (talk) 20:55, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Armenian Empires size

It says at the end Political Geography section that Armenian Empire was large as 3 000 000 km2 under Tigranes the Great and that Parthia was it's vassal but there is no source to these. I have not found anything to prove this so is this information false or true? Someone should put a source to it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.146.240.177 (talk) 10:14, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

File:Roman East 50-en.svg to appear as POTD soon

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Roman East 50-en.svg will be appearing as picture of the day on December 23, 2015. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2015-12-23. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:30, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Picture of the day

A map depicting the Kingdom of Armenia in c. 50 BC. The kingdom existed from 321 BC to 428 AD; its history is divided into successive reigns by three royal dynasties: Orontid, Artaxiad, and Arsacid. During the Byzantine–Sasanian wars, Armenia was ultimately partitioned into Byzantine Armenia and Persian Armenia.Map: Konstantinos Plakidas

Language, written, the ethnic composition of Greater Armenia

The article should profile: "Language, written, the ethnic composition of Greater Armenia". And there should take account of what these facts:

“ In connection with the accounts of these events in Darius's inscription at Bīsotūn the names Armina (Armenia) and Arminiya (Armenian) appear for the first time. The Greek authors also use them. They bear no relation to the names Hay (pl. Haykʿ) and Hayastan which the Armenians gave, and still give, to themselves and their country ”

“ "Probably during Darius's reign, Aramaic was introduced into Armenia, as the language of the imperial administration, where it continued for centuries to be used in official documents (see below), and knowledge of Persian also began to spread among the Armenians, as attested by Xenophon (see below)". ”

“ Another interesting fact noted by Xenophon is that the Persian language was understood and spoken in remote villages of Western Armenia ( Anabasis 4.5.10, and 5.34) ”

“ "On the other hand, the term for a pagan priest, k ʿ urm (pl. k ʿ urmk ʿ) is an Armenian modification of the Aramaic kumrā and must have entered the religious vocabulary in the period when imperial Aramaic was the main governmental language in Armenia. ”

“ "At the time of the invention of the Armenian alphabet, Pahlavi was the language of the royal administration and of the court (Movsēs Xorenacʿi. 3.52), when the Greek and the Syrian languages were used in the Church". ”

(http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/armenia-ii)

“ The ethnonym itself and all other names attested with reference to the rebellions against Darius in Armina (the proper names Araxa, Haldita, and Dādṛšiš, the toponyms Zūzahya, Tigra, and Uyamā, and the district name Autiyāra) are not connected with Armenian linguistic and onomastic material attested later in native Armenian sources ”

(http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/armenia-i). Dehqan (talk) 17:50, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

---

I removed these Area figures from the infobox here: [13]. The citation needed tags have been in the article for many years. The note says The footnote at bottom is the source, perhaps. — all content in an article needs to be reliably sourced. The first thing I checked was academic sources discussing biblical geography because 69AD is around that era and I had a lot of sources for this easily accessible — I couldn't find anything. Other academic sources indicate there are some complicated issues in the historiography [14] — I will be looking for more WP:RS. Chahin says there are some problems with Plutarch (which is certainly believable), but it will take more work to sort it out. I don't think it should be restored until these issues are hashed out.Seraphim System ^(talk) 05:17, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Removal of Area figures from infobox

I removed these Area figures from the infobox here: [15]. The citation needed tags have been in the article for many years. The note says The footnote at bottom is the source, perhaps. — all content in an article needs to be reliably sourced. The first thing I checked was academic sources discussing biblical geography because 69BC is around that era and I had a lot of sources for this easily accessible — I couldn't find anything. Other academic sources indicate there are some complicated issues in the historiography [16] — I will be looking for more WP:RS. Chahin says there are some problems with Plutarch (which is certainly believable), but it will take more work to sort it out. I don't think it should be restored until these issues are hashed out.Seraphim System ^(talk) 05:18, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Native Armenian faith

My concern is that several people corrected that before Christianity in Armenia the native pagan faith was the main religion. Zoroastrianism only had a brief period. Either it has to say "Native Armenian pagan faith" or both, but stating only zoroastrianism is falsification of history, as several others mentioned as well. HistoryOfIran changes all Armenian articles in favor of Iran. Zoroastrianism was never as big as the native faith in Armenia, which is logical by the way. 2003:6:136F:6947:9CA2:1C43:8934:5370 (talk) 02:49, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

In regards to the flags

Comment on population 9 Nov 2010: "In regards to the flags, I think that the flag of the Artaxiad dynasty should remain as there is substantial evidence of the banner being real as it was reconstructed on this armenian blog post: https://www.peopleofar.com/2017/01/30/reconstructing-artaxiad-flag/, not to mention that the same flag exists in slightly different forms all across the web, legitimizing it further. Now, in regards to the Arsacid dynasty flag, I think that it should not be included as it appears in no reliable sources, and is most likely fabricated. Not to mention that this flag is very unlikely as it resembles the Artaxiad flag, which would be very unlikely as the Arsacids and Artaxiads were rival factions." (End) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sci Show With Moh (talk • contribs) 20:15, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

I removed it wherever I could find it. As far as I can tell, these and many other flags claiming to be historical are merely the creation of blogs like PeopleOfAr and are not attested in any scholarly source. Revolution Saga (talk) 09:05, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

RS for provinces

I added a source (Hewsen 1997) to Kingdom_of_Armenia_(antiquity)#Provinces (which was and still is unsourced with one "citation needed" tag) and switched the format from a bullet list to a paragraph (per MOS:USEPROSE?). For reasons that I don't understand (and that they don't explain), @NmWTfs85lXusaybq keeps removing this edit. NmWTfs85lXusaybq: why? a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 09:27, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

A455bcd9 was overwriting the section Kingdom_of_Armenia_(antiquity)#Provinces with material in Greater Armenia without any consensus in the ongoing merge proposal per this edit while their material is not the same. Although they pretended to add sources here, I'm reverting what he did before the discussion concludes. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 09:34, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

1. I first added expanded the ref and copied the list of provinces to Greater Armenia a few days ago. I should have added this source the same day here (Kingdom of Armenia (antiquity) and it would not have caused any problem.
2. Of course the material is the same: have you dared to read the content? It's just the list of the 15 provinces of Greater Armenia. Can you point to what is different in substance (not format)? It's the IDENTICAL list. I removed the capitals because they're neither needed nor sourced (and may have changed over time?).

So can you stick to the content and explain why you reverted? The existence of an ongoing merge proposal in unrelated and in any case does not prevent from improving the content (here, adding a source) of this article. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 10:33, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

The source here is restored as well as recently removed material in Greater Armenia. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 11:02, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

When you make a mistake, you can acknowledge it and apologize. I added back the other sourced part you removed. And I reverted your disruptive edit on Greater Armenia. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 12:18, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

What are you doing @NmWTfs85lXusaybq? Can you please engage in discussion instead of disruptive edits? The vast majority of the "Political geography" is still largely unsourced and has been like this since the {{Unreferenced section}} tag was added in... May 2020! Why did you remove it? The source you added (Hewsen1997) after After 331 BC, Armenia was divided into Lesser Armenia (a region of the Kingdom of Pontus), mentions neither this date nor the Kingdom of Pontus. Stop. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 14:28, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

@Materialscientist, you removed "obscure refs" back in... 2013 (!) and NmWTfs85lXusaybq has just added them back. Knowledge Barn, Time Almanac, and The New Review don't make any sense to me (and I'm not sure they are RS for an article about history...), so I would revert that part. What do you think? (I don't know whether the Armenian Soviet Encyclopedia is RS in terms of neutrality, it's fine for now, but it would be better to have a more recent academic source) a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 16:33, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

@NmWTfs85lXusaybq: can you please engage in discussions and stop your nonsensical edits?

• What's the point of adding one old Armenian-language source when we already a high-quality English-language RS backing the same claim?
• You removed Knowledge Barn after reverting @Materialscientist's edit from... 10 years ago(!!!). I'm glad you acknowledged that your edit was total rubbish. But the rest is not better, and your attempt to format it with {{cite book}} makes it looks better but these are still obscure sources. "Time Magazine, p. 724" without the year: come on... Are you joking?

Again: please explain your edits here. Otherwise, I'll revert them. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 08:34, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Don't remove the source, but please try to find the year instead. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 08:47, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Are you kidding? These sources are obscure nonsense, that's why @Materialscientist correctly removed them TEN YEARS AGO. There's no reason for anyone to go ten years back in the past to revert someone's edit and add back rubbish. Revert your own edits and stop your disruption. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 08:50, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Are you engaging in edit warring? It's incivil of you to keep using the words like "rubbish" and "disruption". Wait for reply from Materialscientist then. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 08:55, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

You are edit warring. I asked you to start discussing multiple times (3 times on Dec 4 and once on Dec 5 above) and you're only answering now. It is not uncivil to qualify the sources you added back for what they are: rubbish. Back then Materialscientist described them as "obscure". And disruption is also the perfect qualifier for your behavior. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 09:02, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Haven't I answered you at Special:PermanentLink/1188269324 and Special:PermanentLink/1188278342? There's too much bludgeoning here. We're just volunteers. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 09:36, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

What bludgeoning? I'm just asking you to stop edit warring. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 14:48, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Historical Armenia

Sometimes "historical Armenia" is linked to this article, and sometimes to Armenian highlands, History of Armenia, Historical regions of Armenia, Medieval Armenia, Kingdom of Armenia (Middle Ages), Armenian Kingdom, Western Armenia, or even just Armenia. I made the redirect Historical Armenia when the only one I had encountered was Armenian highlands, but now maybe that's not the best choice. Would it make sense to use the redirect for all these and go to a consistent target, or fix the linked terms to be more specific, or just leave them alone? Dicklyon (talk) 20:33, 6 October 2024 (UTC)