Talk:Artaxerxes II

message: I removed teh incest allegations. Please note that concubines were often refferred to as "Royal Daughters". Creepy but not incest.    — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.151.109.22 (talk) 22:08, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Incest Allegations

message: The peace stipulated in 386 b.C. by Artaxerxes is called the peace of Antalcidas. Not Antaklidas... :)—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.101.126.224 (talk • contribs) .
For future reference, if you would like to correct a typo, just click "edit this page" at the top and you can fix it yourself. You don't even need to have an account! Livajo 21:54, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: So, was he 90 or 94 years old when he died? The current text at Artaxerxes III of Persia contradicts itself. Woodwalker (talk) 18:50, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: You mean 86 or 94? In any case there are different accounts.--Xashaiar (talk) 20:44, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, but the inconsistency is not in this article, but in the article about Artaxerxes III of Persia (three, not two). The sources may differ, but in that article his age is twice presented more or less as a fact, first 90, then 94. Woodwalker (talk) 21:46, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, thanks for informing. I will correct them. But apparently accounts of Ctesias contradicts Plutarch's. --Xashaiar (talk) 21:54, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Age of Araxerxes II

message: This section section should be at Artaxerxes I!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.59.157.95 (talk) 15:09, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contradictions in dates 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Artaxerxes II of Persia. 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/20080619124220/http://www.iranologie.com/history/Achaemenid/chapter%20V.html to http://www.iranologie.com/history/Achaemenid/chapter%20V.html
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) 18:03, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Artaxerxes I of Persia which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you.  —RMCD bot 02:47, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move discussion in progress 

message: the source (Binder 2008) says his name was Arses, not Arsaces, and Olbrycht 2021 doesn't contradict this. This appears quite straightforward. Avilich (talk) 16:31, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: On the page Olbrycht says his name was Arsaces - Arses is just one of the many variants; "Artaxerxes ii (404–359) bore the name Arsakes (Aršak), and perhaps he may be considered a ruler particularly venerated by some Arsakids.63 His name is transmitted in several variants as Arsikas/Ἀρσίκας vel Arses/Ἄρσης (Plut. Artox. 1.4), Arsakas/Ἀρσάκας (Ktesias in Photios, FGrH 688 F15 [51]), and Arsakes/Ἀρσάκης (Ktesias in Photios, FGrH 688 F15 [55]). Deinon offers the form Oarses/Ὀάρσης.64 Babylonian sources give the form Aršu,65 mirrored in Greek sources as Arses/Ἄρσης. It seems that the form Aršak is a hypocoristic from Old Persian *Ṛšā-.66" --HistoryofIran (talk) 16:44, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Binder 2008, pp. 97–98, says (Google-translated):  Olbrycht 2021 says 'Arsaces vel Arses', which itself means he doesn't favor any of the two, but then he goes on to say that Arsaces is a diminutive, which implicitly confirms that Arses is correct. He also cites Binder on that same page, and so presumably thinks Binder is correct. Avilich (talk) 17:00, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I mean, Olbrycht literally says that his name was Arsakes per the quote, so I don't think there's anything to argue in that regard, diminutive or not. Names do evolve after all - that would be like saying "Josh" can't be a proper personal name, since it's a diminutive of Joseph. Moreover, Olbrycht is a leading historian in Late Antiquity Iranian studies (especially Parthian), and his work is much more recent, which is also important to note considering how notoriously underresearched Iranian history used to be. --HistoryofIran (talk) 17:14, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with HistoryofIran. I see nothing to change what Olbrycht states, which is also stated by other modern sources. Perhaps placing the above quote in a note form within the article would be more productive. --Kansas Bear (talk) 17:35, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

text: Sorry, but that's a pretty faulty interpretation considering you have to detach the phrase "bore the name Arsakes" from its entire context, from the source he cites, and from the fact that he himself says "Arsikas vel Arses" (interchangeable). I didn't say "Josh"/Arsaces is invalid as a personal name due to it being a diminutive, only that the lede should show the original form "Joseph"/Arses, and that the other one should be explained in the text. What you're effectively proposing is that a person should be formally introduced for the first time by a nickname (Josh) as opposed to the actual name (Joseph). There's no reason to prefer a 2021 source to one published in 2008, but even that line of thinking is misleading, since Binder and Olbrycht don't contradict each other. Also, Olbrycht's book is about the Parthians and only gives an overview (on that page at least) of Achaemenid naming conventions: for further reading on that subject he cites the very source (Binder 2008) you're effectively ignoring. Not to mention Binder covers Artaxerxes II specifically and in detail, is coherent and makes sense, and is a reliable source in his own right which cannot be simply dismissed out of hand. Avilich (talk) 17:47, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, but it seems like you are making more personal interpretations out of a pretty straightforward line of sentences ("Arsikas" is not the same as "Arsakes". He literally calls the other names beside Arsakes for variants). Original form or not, that was still not his name per the source. I've never said that a person should be introduced by his nickname, as I clearly stated that Arsaces/Josh is a name of its own. He cites Binder indeed, but he cites various other sources on that very page, so I'm not really sure why you're particulary focused on Binder. Moreover, historians are allowed to come with their own statements as well, independent of other historians. I'm not dismissing Binder either, but I think those are pretty important points to consider. --HistoryofIran (talk) 18:32, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: "Variant" Greek renditions or spellings of the same Persian name (Arshak), yes. The sentence you quote does not prove he regards Arsaces/"Josh" as a name in its own right, completely distinct from Arses/"Joseph"; he goes on to say the complete opposite by his use of the term "vel" and his description of "Arsaces" as a hypocorism. This is not him being inconsistent: you're the one misinterpreting a single sentence without its proper context.I'm not the one being narrow in my choice of sources, but, if you insist that I point to others, there are the two others Olbrycht cites: Briant 2002, who refers to  in the Index of Personal Names (p. 1150), and also says (p. 986), ; and also Schmitt 1982, who likewise seems to agree with Binder, judging by how the latter cites him. So, either you can interpret that single sentence of Olbrycht in light of what Olbrycht himself goes on to say, and what his sources say, or you can assume that it somehow slipped his mind that he is contradicting all 3 sources he cites, or that he explicitly disagrees with them all but simply forgot to mention the fact. Avilich (talk) 20:03, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Although I still stick by what I said regarding Olbrycht, after a quick look on the sources I possess, it seems Arses is seemingly the correct variant indeed. Feel free to re-add it as you see fit. However, I still don't agree with how the lede was changed. --HistoryofIran (talk) 20:31, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Presumably you mean the changing of the order of names (given name first, regnal name second)? I'll maintain the old one if you prefer; I personally think only the regnal name should be displayed, though I figured there would be no consensus to change a long-standing feature. Avilich (talk) 20:38, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep. --HistoryofIran (talk) 00:37, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name