Talk:Bardiya

message: A previous author of this section claimed that Gaumata was the biblical Artaxerxes in Ezra 4:7.  I challenge this claim because it is inconsistent with the timeline and events of the book of Ezra.  Verses 4-5 tells of how the people of land opposed the Israelites apirations by bribing the counsellors to the kings of Persia from Cyrus to Darius; which includes in the proper order: Cyrus, Cambyses II, the magi Gaumata posing as Smerdis who was then slain and followed by Darius I.  The story then continues to say that they then wrote letters to the next king Xerxes (aka Ahasuerus) and then Bishlam, Mithredath and Tabeel, then wrote to the next king Artaxerxes I.  Then in verse eight Rehum and Shimshai again wrote to Artaxerxes I (Longimanus).  Someone even confirmed this by adding: "However, according to H. G. M. Williamson, the Artaxerxes of Ezra (Ezra 4:7-23) is Artaxerxes Longimanus (Word Biblical Commentary, Vol 16)."  For these reasons I have deleted this claim from the article.
--Avanduyn (talk) 22:43, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Name and Sources

message: There is definitely a historical person Smerdis that we know of and even though the information is limitted we should talk about that person what we know: son of Cyrus II, brother to Cambise II.
Then we have the person (or a construct) Gaumata of whom we know only what Dareios I told us in the Behistun inscription and most likely Herodotus based his account on that text; regardless of what we may speculate we have at least one more person.  We can discuss as long as we like of the fictitiousness of that magian; however, unless we can prove otherwise, there are two separate persons for now, and therefore should have two distinct articles. Aceofhearts1968 (talk) 22:57, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: These should technically be two articles

message: As 1986 was year of peace & security for 40-year UN (1945-1985) and 100-year stature Liberty so too religion causes events.
Smerdis is a Magi priest whether or not anyone gave Bardiya the same name Smerdis. Gaumata is not a name but a christening meaning Cow Mother. It's reference to Taurus bull is easily seen and includes the star Maya as the mother-star of Buddha. If you study religion a buddha is the first man a religion claims has gone to heaven. This is why Jesus as first-man to heaven is ignored by modern Christians to say preFlood Enoch was first-man. And indeed in Hindu antidiluvian Enoch is the Buddha and the rest are Menu (Noah or Nu being the Manu /Man-Nu). The name Gaumata is given to the one claimed as Buddha whose mother is Maya. In that century, Persia had its Gaumata-Buddha (Smerdis), and India had its Gaumata-Buddha, and China had its Gaumata-Buddha (not the same man but a religion creating such because of the calendar cycle that came). That cycle is new year Thoth 1 on January 1 of 522bc. In 365 leap days (1460 years from 1982bc) but in 1508 years (Thompson 100bc Mayan twice 1508 haab is twice 1507 Gregorian) these extra 48 years of 12 leap days increase sothic leap days from 365 to being 377, but solar leap days from 353 to being 365 from 2030bc (origin). It is the claim that the solstice world that died-reborn in 2030bc has come back as solstice 522bc. Thus those who desire to make Bardiya the Gaumata-Buddha are overthrown by those who want to make Smerdis the Gaumata-Buddha. It is the Magi priests (from 525-520bc) who seek to stop Jewish temple, Jewish God, and Jewish Messiah by ruling Persia when Darius comes and says GO BUILD YOUR TEMPLE as CYRUS decreed. Added note: This is also why the world adores the three Magi Priests who defied their religion to declare the world-king as a Jew. It means they went on Kislev 25 (Jewish Christening) before finding and planning the Greek Dec 25 christening. Any Kislev 25 after Dec 25 is either not the year, or was shifted to claim another year (such as 1bc instead of 2bc).72.133.186.186 (talk)
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.133.186.186 (talk) 23:46, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Historians ignoring religion CAUSES politics

message: I have put this flag on this article.  It's an interesting question whether the person who ruled as Smerdis was an impostor, or if this was an invention by Darius, but we really do need some input from recent scholarship on this issue.  This article is based on the 1911 Britannica plus some obscure material in Persian.  Can we even be sure that the second pseudo-Smerdis wasn't the real McCoy? PatGallacher (talk) 20:50, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Which two works did you use? warrior4321 20:41, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

text: You should be sensitive: it is quite possible that Iranian academic sources are more in line with the original Herodotus' version while the western sources more openly doubt it. In full truth, it is impossible to establish now which version is actually correct. This article needs improving but both versions need to be explained StJohnTheBaptist (talk) 20:50, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

text: Encyclopedia Iranica, written by Iranian and Zoroastrian authorities, and published by Columbia university should also be checked. The article can be found here. warrior4321 21:39, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I would be a little cautious about Persian Fire. It's a great read (and I personally enjoyed it a lot) but it doesn't have a high reputation as an academic work - such is the fate of popularisers of history, unfortunately. I'd suggest focusing more on works from academic publishers. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:45, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

text: If that article didn't take us much further, please check this article. warrior4321 01:05, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The theory you picked up from non-academic source like "persian fire" is hypothetical. It was apparently due to Olmstead (cf. Dandamev). The point is that 1. This "theory" questions 99% of Ancient sources (Persian, Babylonian, Greek and even later Roman). 2. There is no evidence to support that. There is also misunderstanding: Vahyazdata is the one that rebeled against Darius himself. So I am not sure "what is to be clarified".Xashaiar (talk) 02:16, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Xashaiar, you keep pushing you POV. If you know a lot about the alternative theory, please, write about it without you opinion that it is hypothetical. Add referenced critique if you wish. But, please, read what other write first. As far as I understand, Vahyazdata declared himself Smerdis when he rebelled. Someone has asked whether he might have been real Smerdis. I have answered. StJohnTheBaptist (talk) 06:59, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Look Vahyazdata "also" declared himself Bardia (Smerdis). That does not make him real Bardia or first false Bardia.  Xashaiar (talk) 07:31, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

text: You wrote without reading my posts. It is nearly the same what I said. What might make him 1st false Bardiya is the fact that Darius killed Bardiya (if this fact is, in fact, true) StJohnTheBaptist (talk) 07:43, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: You have written nothing like that. You are confusing all the characters. There are at least 4 Bardia in Achaemenid Iran. Your "Persian fire" makes all of them "killed by Darius"? "What might make him 1st false Bardiya is the fact that Darius killed Bardiya" this sentence is supposed to make sense? If yes, how? Xashaiar (talk) 08:09, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

text: You are asking for "new theory" about something from ancient time. Difficult to handle. This story is 99% accepted by ancient sources and I guess that means we should accept. Because even archaeological discoveries can not change anything (note that the official story is also supported by inscriptions, Babylonian tables, indigenous and non-indigenous sources..). New theories remain as "hypothesis" which if any of them become very interesting can be mentioned otherwise not really. Dandamaev (in the article "Bardiya" in Encyclopaedia Iranica) mentions about the hypothesis that is base of what can apparently be different from "recorded story". He says :"Some modem scholars (e.g., Olmstead) believe that the man who revolted against Cambyses was his true brother and lawful heir and that Darius killed him, calling him Gaumāta and inventing the story of the false Bardiya in order to justify his own seizure of the kingship. However, this must remain hypothetical (see gaumāta)." Now what Darius himself and other historian say is "Cambyses ordered the killing of Bardiya". disagreement is whether the one killed by Darius is this one or another one (called "false Smerdis" by Herodotos). Most sources say Darius did not kill Cambyses' brother. Xashaiar (talk) 08:46, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  this source does not seem a specialist work. I think we should remove that or find a better one. Xashaiar (talk) 20:29, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: In spite of what was said above, I don't think there's any particular reason to favour ancient sources over modern ones. There are some benefits from using ancient sources, but modern sources also have their place in the discussion - modern sources are capable of drawing on a wider variety of accounts, can use archaeological evidence, etc. Nobody really knows whether Gaumata was an invention or not, so I think it should be presented as an open case. I don't think the article at present really does that. It's quite heavily weighted towards the "traditional account", with the "revisionist view" almost tacked on afterwards. Blankfrackis (talk) 13:21, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Expert needed

message: Which name should we use mostly in the article? In my view, it is English wiki, and his Western name is Smerdis, so we mostly should use Smerdis. What do you think? StJohnTheBaptist (talk) 07:03, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: "Bardiya" is correct and more common in all parts of world. There is only problem with spelling "Bardia", "Bardiya", "Bardya", etc. Xashaiar (talk) 07:32, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: What do you mean by all parts of the world? Herodotus used Smerdis, for instance. It may be useful to add a couple of sentences explaining the two names situation at the start. StJohnTheBaptist (talk) 07:43, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

text: I agree. Let's solve one problem before starting another. warrior4321 11:06, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: We may have achieved a degree of stability with this article, although it still needs more work.  Now that we have done so, should we look again at the name.  Should we move it to "Bardiya of Persia"? PatGallacher (talk) 15:32, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Bardia of Persia? Bardiya is fine, but a disam will be necessary. Xashaiar (talk) 20:15, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The Encyclopaedia Iranica calls him Bardiya, we would have to add "of Persia". PatGallacher (talk) 21:25, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: "we would have to add" why is that? Is there any other Bardiya? this "of Persia" is OR and academic sources do not use that. If there is a confusion we may use "Bardiya (Iran)", "Bardiya (Persia)", "Bardiya (Achaemenid)".. or something similar, but that shoulod be done only if we have enough Academic sources using those phrases, I think "Bardiya" or "Bardiya (Iran)" or "Bardiya (Persia)" are good and are according to Wikipedia naming policy. Xashaiar (talk) 22:01, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

text: Why would we have to add  "of Persia" ? There doesn't seem to be any other Bardiya, so just having an article with the name Bardiya seems perfectly fine. warrior4321 22:04, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Smerdis or Bardiya 

message: :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 moved. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 12:01, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Bardiya of Persia → Bardiya — This article is in an unsatisfactory limbo, after a previous move request resulted in "no consenus".  In my view we should now move it to "Bardiya".  As a result of previous move discussions his two immediate predecessors as monarch of Persia (Cyrus the Great and Cambyses II) do not have "of Persia" in their title, so in his case "of Persia" is superfluous. PatGallacher (talk) 16:04, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

text: 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.
As we now have a clear decision to refer to this person as Bardiya can the article be edited to reflect this? PatGallacher (talk) 13:37, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 

message: I propose that this article and Gaumata be merged, as they effectively cover the same topic.  I would prefer it if they were merged at "Bardiya", but that may not be crucial. PatGallacher (talk) 20:43, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger proposal 

message: The quote by Lindsay Allen, The Persian Empire, p.42 is "[Darius'] desire for public belief in this completely unverifiable story [that Bardiya was in fact Gaumata] is huge ... Darius' protestations have not quite convinced modern historians, who largely suspect that Bardiya may well have been the real brother, the legitimate successor of Cambyses, and that his death was probably an act of regicide." Yaan (talk) 01:18, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Modern view