Talk:Colchis

message: "The kingdom of Colchis, which existed from the sixth to the first centuries B.C.E is presented as the first Georgian state. [9]
A second Georgian tribal union emerged in the 13th century BC on the Black Sea coast under creating the Kingdom of Colchis in the western Georgia."
I understood nothing! Why 6-1cc BC? As i understand, it existed long before...
Why 'second'? What is the first? 
...Iberia? I come to this just now.
Somebody who understand - please, make it clear and correct. And then delete this section from the discussion:-)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.237.111.41 (talk) 04:46, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Strange line 

message: We have created this article as an very good academic article, but you as officers of the Assimilationist Georgian Goverment, have alterated and converted as Georgian official propaganda text from that academic article by your quackish bad claims. 
You can get round wikipedist editors, now. 
But you can't never camouflage historical facts and historical documentary materials evermore. 
You can't never camouflage archaic classicals, so Procopius , Jordanes , Agathias , Xenophon, Joannes Laurentius Lydus and others on Web.. 
And you can't deny these facts to the end of time..
For example, Cyril Toumanoff is your invalid references that you are using on three paragraphs.. 
Who is Cyril Toumanoff? 
He is a Georgian prince from 20.century and his real name Cyril Toumanishvili ! 
This is very absurd reference. 
Why didn't use archaic references for this archaic subject?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dauernd (talk • contribs) 13:34, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: While accusing others of fascism and racism, you’ve demonstrated yourself as an overt xenophobe and your unprovoked attack is a testimony to that. There is no sense in discussing the content-related issues with you until you learn to respect others and engage in a normal conversation. KoberTalk 16:41, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Kober, there is no protection needed. That user is involved in outright vandalism and spread of hate massage. This article is well sources from various scholarly publications which are clearly visible in the reference section. Protection shall be given against anon changes but not for disputing a well sourced material. Also that user should be blocked from editing after blunt racist attacks. Iberieli (talk) 16:27, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I requested semi-protection for anonymous vandalism but the admin decided to fully protect the page. That guy, using various accounts and Turkey-based ip addresses, has long been crusading across Wikipedia pages insulting Georgians and accusing them of fascism and racism, characteristically capitalizing these words. Next time he appears, I will file a checkuser case and request an admin involvement. --KoberTalk 16:44, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

text:  p.s I also checked his reference: Agathias (AD.536-594): The Histories (Corpus Fontium Historiae Byzantinae, Procopius (AD.500-565) : History of the Wars, translated by H.B. Dewing (New York: Macmillan, 1914). Its a false reference, i reviewed the Chronicle of Corpus Fontium Historiae Byzantinae, Procopius nothing of that kind is written there (mind you its an ancient manuscript and according to that vandal, it mentions "Laz-Mingrelian" state, funny because word Mingrelian is a modern one). Anywhere is a fake reference and used to support false information. Iberieli (talk) 16:49, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure. And the passage refers to the early history of Colchis, i.e. before the differentiation of proto-Kartvelian into Georgian and Laz-Mingrelian (Zan) languages. Lazoi and Lazica are much later terms, and the Classical sources do not know the word Mingrelia as it is a medieval Georgian variation of the earlier ethno/toponym Egrisi. According to that user, Cyril Toumanoff, an outspoken critic of all kind of nationalist bias in the Caucasian history writing, appears to be a "Georgian fascist". That's simply ridiculous. --KoberTalk 16:57, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Indeed Kober, he is a simply blunt vandal who has his strong anti-Georgian bias and is trying to undermine credible information with deletions, racist attacks on the Georgian users. Iberieli (talk) 23:33, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  1-Why can't you reply to questions above that about your reference alteration, and why do you delete that questions? 2-What time is your office hours in foreign ministry of Georgia?(I wonder it realy)Dauernd (talk) 17:23, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Please stop your puerile accusations and personal/ethnic attacks. Nobody is going to waste their time challenging your trollish comments here. Go and read WP:Civility if you really want to join Wikipedia community.--KoberTalk 05:21, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

text: Why do you delete my questions above? Why did you alter orjinal form of this article for yourself ethnical fanaticism? Dauernd (talk) 15:34, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, please stop personal and ethnic attacks. Your questions have not been deleted and have actually been answered. Nobody seems to understand what you actually say. --KoberTalk 15:37, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I say that want scientific thrue information in Wikipedia and not assimilationist etnich fanaticsm.Dauernd (talk) 15:48, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Could you be more specific? And don't accuse others of "ethnic fanaticism" and "fascism". This may bring about sanctions.--KoberTalk 15:50, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You are as one each Georgian Nationalist ignore other South Caucasian people's existence in all your contributions. This is only an "ethnic fanaticism" and not Wikipedism. This is reality shown and not accusing.Dauernd (talk) 16:03, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Look, I asked you several times to tone down and engage in a normal discussion. Next time, your case will be brought to an admin board. --KoberTalk 16:27, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Official Georgian  Propaganda 

message: I recently noticed that Colchis article had a "citation needed" indicated for the statement that the ancient Abasci may have been ancestors of the modern day Abaza. I therefore provided a reference. The next day Kolkhuri-bichi removed it for no good reason I can determine. I am replacing the citation and providing it in full here. Before anyone removes it I would like to know what justification they have for this.
 "The first known mention of one of these tribes, namely the (gens) Absilae (or Apsilae), occurs in the Naturalis historia of Gaius Secundus Pliny Major (first century AD). The modern continuation of this ethnonym is the Abkhazians' self-designation Apswa (= 'Aps(y)-wa). In the second century Arrian has the Greek Apsilai, whilst seventh century Georgian attests apshil-eb-i = Armenian apshel-k 'Abkhazians'."
and
"The name of the other ancient Abkhazian tribe, Abasgoi/Abaskoi, first attested in Arrian, is preserved in the form Abaza, which is the modern self-designation of the Abazinians (cf. also Turkish abaza 'Abkhazian (-Abazinian)', Old Armenian avaz and Old Russian obezu 'Abkhazian'). Conceivably the Greek plural Abasgoi has its source in Circassian abaze-khe, plural of abaze, which today signifies in Circassian only 'Abazinian(s)'.
The modern name by which the Abkhazians are known in Russian and other European languages came via Georgian, where apkhaz-i "Abkhazian" appears relatively late, in the Middle Ages; its original form was most probably *abazkh-i (cf. Greek Abasgoi). The transformation of *abazkh-i into apkhaz-i could have occurred in Mingrelian (as was suggested at the start of the 20th century by Marr), where metathesis (transposition of sounds) is a regular phenomenon in consonant complexes."
These citations are from The Abkhazians, Ed. George Hewitt, 1998. Saint Martin's Press, pp 44-45.  --Picatrix (talk) 12:53, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  George Hewitt is not a reliable source. Iberieli (talk) 17:56, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  He is well known for his anti-Georgian bias (he is married to Abkhaz wife and officially supports separatist regime in Sukhumi). Thats why i consider him unsuitable as a reference. This claim should be supported by other sources, otherwise its just a Hewitt claim. As you can see, there are multiple sources on the article supporting one claim. Same should be used for that sentence, in order to support its reliability. If you can find alternative source (rather than Georgianophobe scholar who has obvious bias) support for Hewitt claim, then we can count the statement as reliable and well referenced. Thanks. Iberieli (talk) 03:18, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

text:  Im sorry but I asked you for the supporting source for Hewitt claim and not for some compromises, nobody disputed Georgian identity of Colchis (there are plenty of sources which support that), but your claim carries a dubious assessment of the ethnic component which is not mentioned in any scholarly publication but only in Hewitts work. Frankly, I dont care who is he married to, however, I am aware of his bias and cant consider him as a neutral source. Please also dont quote Arzimba (its obvious biased reference from separatist rebel leader) . Im well aware of Kaskians, Hattians but please find any source from scholarly publication to support Hewitts claim that Abaza's of today are descendants of ancient Colchians (as there are plenty of references which support Mingrelian connection with Colchians). For example, there are numerous sources supporting the claim that Colchis is considered as an early Georgian state. Similarly, lets have more than one source on Abaza claim to balance the article. Plus, i dont see any "nationalistic" references of Georgia, the references are taken from scholarly publications which you can see in the reference section. I would highly advice for you to review the sources and again support Hewitts claim fir secondary or tertiary source. There is no compromise needed when the text is supported by number of good references. Iberieli (talk) 23:31, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Iberieli. Hewitt is notoriously one-sided and frequently manipulates historical facts in order to upheld Abkhaz secessionist cause. Please note that most of the contributors to his book are Abkhaz authors who hold various positions in the separatist regime. Hewitt did not even consult his colleagues and former mentors from Georgia, with whom he worked in the 1970s, to let them represent a Georgian vision of the subject in question. This is simply dishonest. Georgians wrote about Abkhazia and studied its land and peoples over a millennium before the Soviet campaign for eradication of illiteracy created the first native Abkhaz scholarship.    
Back to the subject of the current discussion, from what I see here a sort of uncertainty is created by an ambiguity of the term “Colchian”. Colchians were a proto-Georgian\Kartvelian tribe, a product of the assimilation of the migrating Anatolian elements such as Kaskai (Kaskians) with local ethnic elements. In its larger sense, “Colchian” may mean all inhabitants of Colchis, including Abasgoi and Apsilae. Another issue is that ancient authors did well not distinguish the tribes and their territories along ethnic lines. Thus, many terms they applied were in fact collective and it is now near to impossible to identify them either 100% proto-Abkhaz or 100% proto-Georgian (see Talbert et al, Barrington Atlas of the Greek and Roman World, p. 1227), partly because of the frequent relocation of tribes within Colchis or from beyond its borders. Here’s passage from Studies in Christian Caucasian History by the most prolific Western scholar of the Caucasus Prof. Toumanoff: 
--KoberTalk 05:54, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

text: Picatrix, I'm getting bit frustrated and also tired. I completely understand your arguments and thanks for the interesting reading I would appreciate if you include references for your claims rather than claiming that there is consensus among scholars on any given topic, consensus between who? what? when? how? reference please). However, I do not require a detailed explanation on neutrality and on simple facts. I just made a simple request, to find additional source (besides Hewitts) on Abazg connection with ancient Colchians (and im not saying there were none, just want to verify the information so this article looks balanced). Thats all i asked. When I add some sentences to this article (look at history of editing of this article) I always use multiple sources (and although i would love to use Georgian scholars who are no less professional in their field, I insert sources from western scholars to avoid any further misunderstandings). Also I did not dispute your statement (there is no resolution needed and no compromises), I just asked you for additional source. But if you cant find one, than we can say that " according to George Hewitt Abazg tribes are descendants of ancient Colchians.  Just as i wrote: According to the renown scholar of the Caucasian studies Cyril Toumanoff: "Colchis appears as the first Caucasian State to have achieved the coalescence of the newcomer, Colchis can be justly regarded as not a proto-Georgian, but a Georgian (West Georgian) kingdom." Thats all. Again for dispute resolution, you need a solid dispute which we don't have here (I dont know why you think we have a dispute, its simple discussion). Also i did not say compromise is not possible, i said there is need for one because im not against your statementIberieli (talk) 16:12, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  So let me get it straight, you are using Abkhaz sources for that claim? Than, what keeps me from bombard this article with Georgian sources? Chirikba, Arzimba and Bagapsh is not a reliable or neutral source. I have no objections to Hewitt but definately not Abkhaz separatist sources can be used in this article. I asked you more than couple times to find NEUTRAL sources, not Georgian, not Abkhaz but sources from western scholars. Sources by Chirikba, Arzimba and other separatist daydreamers, are not reliable or be considered as scholarly. Again, you may use freely any reference but make sure you mention an important detail that it is according to Abkhaz side and not by any "scholarly consensus". Anyway, Ed. Hornblower and Spawforth don't mention Abazg or moder day Abkhaz do they? While Suny, Toumanof, Rosen, Allen, Land all mention about Colchian connection to early or proto-Georgian tribes. With all due respect please use neutral scholars such as you did already, Ed. Hornblower and Spawforth but avoid using any biased Abkhaz referenced which are highly questionable and controversial. Otherwise, we wouldn't get anywhere. I recommend to consult this book by well known Colchis scholar David Braund: Georgia in Antiquity: A History of Colchis and Transcaucasian Iberia, 550 BC-AD 562. As for your footnote, its all up to you. If you think its reasonable please insert it. But again, I dont think we should use Chirikba or Arzimba if we are talking about scholars.  Iberieli (talk) 22:48, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

text: Thank you very much for your research and contribution, we also should work on the history section, which desperately needs additional information. Thanks again, Best. Iberieli (talk) 17:08, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal and Replacement of Citation for Abasci 

message: Since this is listed as a location in greek mythology, I figured it needs to put in the general greek mythology category too. I don't have an account so I can't do it because the article's protected, but I wanted to point it out.--24.255.171.220 (talk) 17:55, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Category

message: In the first paragraph of this page, the word "Georgian" is used seven times alone. It reads rather ridiculously. Granted, the fact that Colchis was in modern Georgia is of vital note, but the repetition of the word is absurd. (Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:04, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Overuse of the word "Georgian" 

message: "Apollonius of Rhodes states that the Egyptians of Colchis preserved as heirlooms a number of wooden tablets showing seas and highways with considerable accuracy.". Where does this occur? I have two translations at my elbow, but I can find nothing about Colchians as Egyptians nor wooden tablets. Part of the elaborate modern Georgian founding mythology?--Wetman (talk) 07:22, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The quote is taken from Britannica 1911 which can hardly be considered part of modern Georgian founding myth-making:
 (LoveToKnow link)
Another quote from more recent source The History of Cartography by John Brian Harley, David Woodward (1987), p. 158:
 (Google Books link)
--KoberTalk 12:22, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: A misrepresentation of a passage in ''[[Argonautica]]''?

message: Is Geo კოლხეთი a neologism? I can’t find it here. — Apswaaa (talk) 12:38, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Colchis is known as Colchis in all of the sources that I have ever dealt with. It is most likely an indigenous name for the kingdom that was taken by others, this is why they all sound the same: Colchis (English), Colcheti(Georgian), Colchida(Russian) etc. I do not know what meskhi.net is so I cannot tell you why you cannot find Colchis there.--ComtesseDeMingrélie  19:23, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Didn’t you notice ნიკო ჩუბინაშვილი’s dictionary there? ))) Apswaaa (talk) 21:54, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  კოლხეთი 

message: Colchis is not the name of a "kingdom", it is the name of a people and a region in the Southern Caucasus. 
The toponym is apparently first recorded in the 9th century BC. There were "Colchians" and Colchian tribal kings, I suppose, but never a "kingdom of Colchis". It was under Persian, then Greek rule, then partly Iberian (Caucasian Iberia) partly Pontic Greek. It is completely misguided to present a "kingdom of Colchis" which supposedly lasted from 1300 BC(!) to 164 BC. --dab (𒁳) 12:26, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: There can arguably be talk of an "Achaemenid client-kingdom of Colchis" during the 6th to 4th centuries BC. This could be covered in a section here, but certainly doesn't cover the full topic of "Colchis".  --dab (𒁳) 12:38, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Article topic

message: Iberia and Colchis, both, were ethnic Georgian kingdoms.
Iberia was eastern Georgian kingdom when Colchis was western Georgian kingdom of Svans and Mingrelians.
Stop vandalising the article and stop removing the sourced information. GEORGIANJORJADZE 09:29, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Once again, like for Caucasian Iberia, GJ, no need to call vandalism what was a cleanup. The Georgian character of Colchis is established, no need to overburden the article, and especially the lead, with poor quality sources. I have rewritten the lead to make it shorter and more to the point in accordance to the manual of style. Please discuss here if you have any objections to the article and its sources.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Susuman77 (talk • contribs) 17:53, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Iberia and Colchis were ethnic Georgian kingdoms where Georgian and other Kartvelian languages were spoken. They spoke Georgian language, wrote in Georgian alphabet and were Georgians. This is an established fact. GEORGIANJORJADZE 20:19, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

text: See my answer on Talk:Caucasian Iberia.Susuman77 (talk) 21:40, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: See my answer on Talk:Caucasian Iberia. GEORGIANJORJADZE 21:55, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[User talk:Dbachmann]] Stop vandalising the article 

message: Golden Lion from #2 Kurgan of Tsnori has nothing to do with Colchis. It belongs to western Georgian Kurgan culture (Kurgans of Tsnori group). This culture existed long before than Colchis and as I mentioned above it was western Georgian phenomenon. Kurgans itself are not found in territory of Cholchis. So could you please remove it? I'd really appreciate!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.73.171.20 (talk) 12:35, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your comment. Removed. --KoberTalk 14:17, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Golden Lion from #2 Kurgan of Tsnori 

message: The author at the German wikipedia refuses to accept that Mingrelians were part of the population of ancient Lazica. What do you think about this?
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diskussion:Lasika  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cybersem (talk • contribs) 18:24, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lazica and Mingrelian 

message: Does anybody have any idea or clue who is the biblical ancestor of the Colchians. Because some researchers and people claim them to be descendants Meshech, Tubal or Tiras. Some have even suggested Magog but this is all not specific.S. John Warrynn (talk) 15:50, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Biblical Ancestor 

message: Wikis are not reliable sources because they are user-generated. This includes Wikipedia - rather than relying on wikilinks to stand as sources, reliable sources should be added directly. These sources should demonstrate not only the existence but also the significance of the entries. Until that happens, the cleanup tags should remain in place. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:02, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Per the RfC, primary sources are insufficient for this content - you need secondary sources that indicate the significance of the entries to the subject. So the tag should stay. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:40, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sourcing 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Colchis. 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/20050415075230/http://www.amarcord.be/georgia/kolchis.html to http://www.amarcord.be/georgia/kolchis.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) 09:11, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: It seems both in the article and on the talk page the authority of Cyril Toumanoff is quoted as being beyond any doubt. However being a person of Georgian ancestry as the article about it clearly states ("His father came of the princely family of Tumanishvili"), he well could have had intentional and/or unintentional bias. The way his works are quoted show author bias, or WP editor's quote cherrypicking, or both.
The talk page also contains a false statement "This article is well sourced based on the scholarly publications by Toumanoff, Braud, Lang and others". However searching for "Braud" in the article returns nothing. Search for "Lang" hits only the word "language" many times. Hence again Toumanoff/Toumanishvili seems to be the only source of the 13th century BC "Georgianness". Moreover Toumanoff is dubbed "specialized in the history of medieval Georgia and the Byzantine Empire" which is no less than 1500 years away from the 13th century BC.
Any sources other than Toumanoff? Preferably not ones quoting Toumanoff themselves, colleagues of Toumanoff, or his students (WP:FRINGE). If Toumanoff was a scientist, he must have worked with earlier sources and must have quoted them. Otherwise the article must state his opinion as an OR: "Cyril Toumanoff considered Colchis an early Georgian".
It ought to be easy to quote his sources as he has studied in an US school and attended an US university, i.e. his works are assumed to be in English. Aren't they?
--188.126.8.121 (talk) 23:09, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cyril Toumanoff bias, the medieval antiquity and the lack of sources 

message: Natively Colchis was known as Egrisi.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.237.149.238 (talk) 04:09, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Colchis is a Greek exonym 

message: "The Colchians were governed by their own kings in the earliest ages, that Sesostris king of Egypt was overcome in Scythia,[29] and put to fight, by the king of Colchis, which if true, that the Colchians not only had kings in those times, but were a very powerful people.[30][31]" 'fight' should be 'flight' I reckon Ubilaz (talk) 02:28, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Put to flight 

message: We should follow reliable sources when deciding whether to mention Abkhazia or not. In fact several of them discuss Colchis when writing about the history of Abkhazia. For example Smith et al write about the historiography of Colchis in the context of the conflict (Nation-building in the Post-Soviet Borderlands: The Politics of National Identities, pp. 53,54):
Hewitt likewise talks about Colchis in his review of the history of Abkhazia (The Abkhazians. A handbook, pp. 13,14)
We are not endorsing anything by including it, in fact the reader can easily see that most of the UN members consider Abkhazia a part of Georgia in the footnote. Alaexis¿question? 17:11, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: As you can see reliable sources mention Abkhazia separately when discussing Colchis. Alaexis¿question? 21:00, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  you call "Abkhazian sources" reliable? :) or book by Hewitt, openly pro-Abkhaz separatist biased scholar with clear political agenda also reliable? Why sudden attack on this article Alaexis?  This is crealy an original research and has no place on this article. Iberieli (talk) 14:31, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  Your personal opinion is not enough to discredit a scholar. Braund says about Hewitt that "he and his colleagues ... constitute the heart of Georgian studies in Britain" (Georgia in Antiquity, p. ix). At any rate I provided another source that talks about. it. Alaexis¿question? 18:05, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mentioning Abkhazia 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:46, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: We need to fix inline references here. The last one [15] is to Georgia in Antiquity by David Braund, p. 359, however it's actually the number of pages in that book and the last one contains the index. In the book itself he does not call Colchis a polity, does not date its foundation to 13th century and does not discuss ethnicity of Colchians at all (except for the discussion of Greek-Barbarian dichotomy).
Some of these claims, like Colhians being Kartvelians, are noncontroversial. Maybe they are found in one of the references 8-14?  Alaexis¿question? 20:59, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: There are plenty of sources on Colchis being Kartvelian or Georgian and your long history of anti-Georgian POV activities is well known among Wiki users who edit Georgia related articles. Braunds entire book and reference to Colchis is always included in the context of: "ancient Georgian, ancient Georgia, history of Georgia, Georgia in Antiquity, Colchis as Ancient Georgia, Georgian tradition and myth, Georgian paganism" etc. Those references are on every page of his book. I will include additional references in due time. Iberieli (talk) 14:25, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  There is no need to make it personal when I found an inaccuracy in a reference. Great if you can fix it. Alaexis¿question? 17:59, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  References error - Braund 

message: When writing about the period of Persian domination and the subsequent period before the  and Suny writes that Colchis was in some kind of federation with Iberia, with the local skeptoukhi (sceptre-bearers) being subordinate to the Iberian king. On the other hand Braund does not say anything about the union with Iberia and basically says that Colchis was fragmented into skeptoukhies but that there was a dynasty of local rulers, at least if Strabo is to be believed.
We mention both in the article, but I was wondering which way the current scholarly consensus leans. Alaexis¿question? 10:00, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Native dynasty or federation with Iberia 

message: Re this edit, I don't see how these sources support the claim that Colchis was established in 17th (or 13th for that matter). Could you point to the passage where Herodotus or Pliny say it? To be honest, considering that they lived many centuries after that, even if they do say it it should be attributed. Alaexis¿question? 11:54, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: This IP has already been told of this, yet he ignores it and continues his disruptive WP:TENDENTIOUS editing. I've already reported him for edit warring. --HistoryofIran (talk) 15:55, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

text: If this reasoning is not found in reliable sources then this is WP:OR. Can you provide a reference? Also, nothing in what you wrote suggests that Colchis was a state or any other kind of polity at that time - rather than a geographical region, in which case it doesn't make sense to talk about the date it was established. Alaexis¿question? 01:59, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Time of establishment 

message: Delete "Need citation" because we know from the stories of Jason and the Argonauts and the Trojan War that Colchis existed in the 13th century.
The Trojan War was in the 12th century, the journey of Jason and the Argonauts was before the Trojan War.  In short this is why Colchis already existed in the 13th century it was a powerful and rich state (according to the Argonauts).
Also...
"Pliny the Elder also makes mention of Sesostris, who, he claims, was defeated by Saulaces, a gold-rich king of Colchis."
If Colchis was not a state, then how did the king of colchis defeat the Egyptian Pharaoh?
We know that Sesostris really existed around the 19th century, and we also know from several sources that Sesostris invaded Europe-Colchis.  We also have information about the Egyptians of Colchis from Apollonius of Rhodes.  What else is needed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.152.72.140 (talk) 13:08, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Talk Alaexis

message: , what you wrote sounds plausible, but we need a source for that, otherwise we cannot include it per WP:OR. Alaexis¿question? 08:55, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Herodotus