Talk:Tiridates III of Armenia

message: There are quite a few doubtful points"
# The link to Chosrow takes you to the wrong person and 2 centuries into the future
# The Parthians had been gone for 40 years or so, but are still blamed for everything
# Trdat I ruled 'anal.'?
:nl:Gebruiker:Jcwf
75.178.177.135 (talk) 01:22, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: 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)
thread_title:  This entry seems to mix legend with facts 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)

text:  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)
thread_title:  Conversion from what? 

message: "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)
thread_title:  Kingship 

message: 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120814222110/http://www.stnersess.edu/classroom/badarak/templates/commentary/saintseng.php to http://www.stnersess.edu/classroom/badarak/templates/commentary/saintseng.php
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:00, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Religion and fanatism