Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Parthian Empire/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Karanacs 19:53, 25 May 2010 [1].

Parthian Empire edit

Parthian Empire (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Pericles of AthensTalk 08:31, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

After much preparation and research, I believe this article is ready to hit prime time. The images are properly sourced, the main body is well-cited using multiple academic sources, and the article is highly informative of the time period. And lest I forget, I should thank User:Scapler once again for copyediting the prose! He did a great job with my earlier FAC on the Chinese Han Dynasty.Pericles of AthensTalk 08:31, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support Excellent article at last on a little-known subject. Per Honor et Gloria ✍ 09:23, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Five links to dab pages; see the toolbox to the right. The one external link is working. Ucucha 13:20, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I just fixed them. Also, I'm glad you like the article, Per Honor et Gloria! Cheers.--Pericles of AthensTalk 15:21, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Ucucha 15:28, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments Despite having 3 refs, the text misses the point of what an iwan is; namely, as The Oxford Companion to Architecture says: "A vaulted room open on one side" (my bold). I have corrected an erroneous caption, but will not mess with the main text. Johnbod (talk) 01:13, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi John. You are absolutely right about the opening on one side; I have added such a statement in the prose. Brosius goes a bit further to say that an iwan is "a barrel-vaulted rectangular room opening on one side into a courtyard" (Brosius, 2006: p. 128). Thanks for noticing this! Cheers.--Pericles of AthensTalk 01:42, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. But as a definition Brosius is not very good. Many iwans, like the one you illustrate, operate as in effect entrance porches, so don't open to a courtyard but the surrounding space, whatever that is. Also most later (Islamic) ones have pointed-arch vaults, though the Parthians used barrel-vaults. I also think calling them "audience halls" is too narrow; the one illustrated would make a strange site for such a use. Johnbod (talk) 16:49, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is rather loose usage of "portraiture" in this section - the Dura Europos frescos are pretty clearly not portraits of anyone (btw, the article dates them 1 year differently). "The depiction of the human figure" is one rather cumbersome alternative.
    • "In comparison with the earlier Achaemenid Empire, the Parthian government was notedly decentralized.[133]" seems rapidly contracdicted by "However, the satraps of Parthian times governed smaller territories, and perhaps had less prestige and influence than their Achaemenid predecessors.[138]" I'm used to the idea that the Achaemenid Empire just wanted you to pay tribute & not rebel, and as long as that lasted they left you pretty much alone, compared to the Romans & Greeks.
    • There is very little on the economic life. I'm slightly failing to get a sense of how they lived - how urban were they for example? What was the typical legal status of the peasantry? Did they share the enormous % of slaves in the Roman Empire? That sort of thing. Johnbod (talk) 20:35, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • (1) Since I agree that this is not a portraiture painting per say, yet is an example of Parthian frontality, I have fixed the caption by striking the word "portraiture"; I believe it is fine now. Also, as to the date of the painting, Schlumberger (1986: 1052-1053) claims that it should be dated around 245 AD, so I will take his word over a non-sourced Wikipedia entry at Dura-Europos synagogue. Still, he says c. 245, so perhaps 244 AD is acceptable as well.
    • (2) The Parthian government was notedly decentralized due to the amount of large, semi-autonomous kingdoms within its empire. It is true that the few areas directly controlled by Parthia's central government were carved into smaller administrative units than seen in Achaemenid times, but this is merely part of the explanation as to why large, semi-autonomous kingdoms were formed in the first place. Keep in mind, many of these semi-autonomous kingdoms existed in areas where the Achaemenids once maintained centrally-controlled satrapies.
    • (3) Although international commerce is mentioned in regards to the Eurasian caravan trade (i.e. Silk Road) and the national currency (i.e. the drachma) is given its own subsection, I'm glad you noticed the lack of information on Parthian socioeconomics. This was intentional, since Parthian sources do not provide an adequate picture of socioeconomics. This should come as no surprise, given the detail I laid out in the section "Native and external sources." However, I did try to provide some information on socioeconomics, such as in the military section regarding commoners and wealthy aristocrats who were conscripted into the infantry and heavy-mailed cavalry, respectively.
    • I hope you find these responses sufficient. Let me know otherwise.--Pericles of AthensTalk 21:07, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think the prose needs a further polish; I've changed a number of things in the first couple of sections. More points:
    • "Phraates I expanded Parthia's control past the Gates of Alexander and into Apamea Ragiana.[21]" sounds merely obscure until you follow the links & discover that where both these places were is now very unclear, and that Apamea Ragiana was a city, not a region as "into" suggests.
    • "Ctesiphon may not have become the official capital until the reign of Gotarzes I of Parthia (r. c. 90–80 BC), and Ecbatana serving as the summer residence for the Arsacid royalty."
    • I know it's difficult, but the history section falls too much into a list of one damm thing after another. What is going on here:" Following the Seleucid withdrawal from Mesopotamia, the Parthian governor of Babylonia, Himerus, attempted to conquer Characene, then ruled by Hyspaosines at Charax Spasinu. When this failed, Hyspaosines invaded Babylonia in 127 BC and occupied Seleucia...." Is this an imperial iniative? "from" Charax Spasinu would be better.
    • more later. Johnbod (talk) 17:13, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again John. I changed that sentence to read "occupied Apamea Ragiana" instead of expanded "into", but I am still thinking about how to handle the issue of their locations and how to mention this in the article without getting too wordy. I fixed the sentence about Ctesiphon and Ecbatana, as well as the sentence regarding Himerus and Hyspaosines. However, your concern that the article provides too much data (i.e. this person, in this year, in this place, etc.) and not enough big-picture analysis (I hope that I'm interpreting this correctly) presents a larger problem, which I have recently started to tackle. For example, in addressing Charles' concern below regarding Carrhae, I recently added a sentence clarifying the great importance of Carrhae in Roman-Parthian relations.--Pericles of AthensTalk 19:03, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On the unknown places, might "Phraates I is recorded as expanding Parthia's control ..." at least add a bit of distance to the sentence? You are right about my larger concern; I know all this stuff needs to go in, but the narrative needs shaping as you suggest. I've seen suggestions in books on Roman history that the Romans did not absolutely need to have all those wars with the Parthians, & some may have been driven by the desire for plunder and a politically advantageous triumph. Johnbod (talk) 21:25, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Although she does not mention military triumphs in particular, Maria Brosius (2006) does say something to this effect after describing minted coins and new monuments built to commemorate victories, real or symbolic, over Parthia (pp. 137-138): "The irony of mints like these was that the Roman emperors claimed victory and hence control over an empire, which they never had. Augustus pretended to have won a military victory when in fact no battle was fought. Even though Trajan took Ctesiphon and some territories east of the Euphrates, it did not amount to a conquest of the Parthian empire. It was inconceivable within Roman propaganda that Parthia could stand on an equal political footing with Rome — which it did. Therefore, in contrast to the political reality, Rome emphasised the image of Parthia as a barbarian country, its inhabitants as uncivilised, without order, culture or political strength...Curiously, at the same time as the Parthian was depicted as uncivilised, he was also 'orientalised' in traditional fashion, being described as luxury-loving, leading an effeminate lifestyle, and demonstrating excessive sexuality. These traits were not new. The Romans discovered them in history to justify and legitimise their anti-Parthian sentiments. For that reason the Romans regarded themselves as the new Greeks, especially the Greeks of 480/479 BC who had won victories against the Persian army of Xerxes at Salamis and Plataea. To make this connection, Medes, Achaemenids, Persians, and Parthians were all conflated. The terms 'Parthian' and 'Persian' became interchangeable; any historical differentiation was denied to present the 'East'. It was no longer Greece versus Achaemenid Persia, it was West versus East, Europe versus Asia, Occident versus Orient, the defence of western values against the despotism of the East. The fact that this image did not stand up to reality was irrelevant. Public spectacles restaging the naval battles of the Greek-Persian wars, the inclusion of Spartan auxiliaries in Trajan's army, Nero's bridge across the Bay of Naples resembling Xerxes' bridge over the Hellespont, the parading of Parthian 'hostages' to show Roman superiority, if not victory — all these were ideologically infused demonstrations of Rome's power and Parthia's weakness. For Rome, there was only one world power; the existence of the other was plainly denied."--Pericles of AthensTalk 22:37, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You make an excellent point about politically advantageous triumphs, which are mentioned here or there in the sources I've used, but aren't given any special attention. I think another trip to my university library should be fruitful, as I will try to hunt down sources which cover this subject in detail. I'm thinking Otto Kurz (1983) may be of some help.--Pericles of AthensTalk 22:37, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Update: I went to the library today! I had no time to scour Kurz's work on Roman-Parthian relations, but I did add large chunks of valuable material to the article using Kennedy (1996) and a couple other sources. Using Kennedy, I addressed your concern about Rome's motivations to some extent. However, this is in regards to Rome's ability to invade Parthia after their military reforms, which not only established a permanent auxilia force, but also regiments of Roman-style horse archers and cataphracts (evidence for the latter is seen by Hadrian's reign). I am kind of upset, however, that I was unable to use Rome’s Wars in Parthia: Blood in the Sand (2010), a new publication by Rose Mary Sheldon. The library has ordered the book, but unfortunately it has not yet arrived. Darn! It sounds absolutely perfect.--Pericles of AthensTalk 01:31, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Update: I am at the library now, where I have used both Kurz's work and have finally gotten my hands on Rose Mary Sheldon's new book which is AWESOME. It's a shame I have to leave soon, because I've already gleaned some valuable analysis about Rome's motivations for war. This is what I've recently added to the article using her text: "Yet the Romans had no discernible grand strategy in dealing with Parthia and gained very little territory from these invasions.[117] The primary motivations for war were the advancement of the personal glory and political position of the emperor, as well as defending Roman honor against perceived slights such as Parthian interference in the affairs of Rome's client states.[118]" Pretty nifty, huh?--Pericles of AthensTalk 00:41, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Obviously, take into account that I copyedited the article, so I am biased on the prose requirement. However, copyediting the article forced me to read it through very carefully. In doing so, I found it factually accurate and thorough; I learned a good deal from reading the article, and think it qualifies under FA criteria. かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 21:50, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I owe you big time, buddy! Thanks for copyediting and supporting the article. You've been a great help. Cheers.--Pericles of AthensTalk 03:20, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Review by Charles Edward

This is a marvelous article on a topic I am actually quite familiar with. Very nice job on it. I do have a few comments

  • In the lead, it states "Iranian/Persian", I suspect there may be some sort of compromise behind that phrase. I think it would be beneficial though to reword that to avoid the need for a slash.
  • There are many citations throughout the article, but primarily in the first paragraphs, were references are not following punctuation points.
  • The term "roughly" is employed throughout the article were "about" or "approximately" would sound more authoritative and are more likely the term used by the sources.
  • "During the reign of Artabanus II, two Jewish commoners and brothers, Anilai and Asinai from Nehardea (near modern Fallujah, Iraq), revolted against the Parthian governor of Babylonia." - perhaps "led a revolt", there was more than just the two of them :)
  • I'd add just another sentence after the defeat of Crassus explaining the Roman Government's reaction. This was one of the worst defeats Rome ever experienced. (The article explains their military response, but the defeat shook the leadership of Rome quite badly)
  • "There is only scanty archaeological..." I think this should just be just "scant", not positive though.
  • In the lead, you mention how the Sassanids continued in power over the same region until the 7th century, but this fact is also not mentioned of elaborated in the body. I'd suggest a brief paragraph at the end of the section on Parthian talking about the Parthian successor state.

Fantastic! This article does a marvelous job of summarized a vast amount of data. I wish it included more information on Parthian interaction with China and India, but I am aware little is know of that compared to their Roman interactions. My points above are relatively minor, and won't prevent me from supporting.

Support, —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 15:56, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Charles, nice to meet you. Thanks for showing an interest in the article, and for pointing out a few of its flaws. After editing the article for the past hour or so, I believe that I have now fully addressed all of your concerns listed here with one exception: Crassus and Carrhae. I will need to hunt down a decent source or two which describes the Roman reaction in full. However, at the moment I have other things to tend to; I will return to this topic shortly. Cheers!--Pericles of AthensTalk 23:03, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For now, I've added a bit of basic analysis on Carrhae using Brosius and Bivar: "This victory over Crassus at Carrhae cemented Parthia's reputation as a formidable if not equal power with Rome." However, I don't want to weigh the article down with too much analysis on one event, albeit one of the most important events in Roman-Parthian relations. Also, Carrhae is mentioned again in the following section, where the returning of the lost military standards via diplomacy was hailed by Augustus as a triumph over Parthia in the typical propaganda of the day.--Pericles of AthensTalk 03:17, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support with some minor comments about the references. Ref #56 doesn't link to its title. Refs #117 (Frye) and #119 (Yarshater) are not listed in the references section. Also, the article has the red-linked category, Category:AD 224 disestablishments, for which I cannot find the source code. Do you know how to remedy that? Thank you for this beautiful article. Cunard (talk) 01:00, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oops! Thanks for pointing that out. I just recently added Frye to the article in order to address Charles' concern about the Sasanians. I also added Yarshater's reference; thanks for pointing that out. However, I can't figure out why that Bivar citation (ref #56) isn't working properly. I checked it by editing that section, but there seems to be nothing wrong with how the Harvard-style citation is written. Let me know if you spot anything. Cheers and thanks for reading the article!--Pericles of AthensTalk 01:08, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't know why it wasn't working earlier, but a second look showed me that the Bivar reference was missing a "p=".

The article still has the red-linked category I mentioned above, and I don't know how to fix it. Is it transcluded from somewhere? Cunard (talk) 07:25, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Template:Infobox former country appears to add the article to a category corresponding to the date it has listed under "disestablishment". かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 07:59, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for catching that missing "p=", Cunard! Also, thanks to Scapler for pointing out the infobox template; I'll try to see if this can be fixed. Cheers.--Pericles of AthensTalk 03:20, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I created a new category for Category:224 disestablishments and I fixed that red link in the article. The only problem is that in order for it to work, you have to strike "AD" from the field in the infobox. I'll try to figure out a way to include "AD" alongside the year, without ruining things. Somehow the infobox for articles like Han Dynasty are able to use "BCE" and "CE" yet do not have problems.--Pericles of AthensTalk 16:12, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Aha! I fixed the problem. I just simply created a redirect page, with "Category:AD 224 disestablishments" redirecting to my new category "224 disestablishments". It's perfect! Red link gone. Cheers.--Pericles of AthensTalk 16:46, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Have you got independent confirmation for the Parthian provenance of the "barrel vaulted iwan" depicted? As I said earlier, the ashlar masonry points at Hellenistic or Roman influence (the Parthians typically built with either mudbrick or roughly hewn stone). You may want to check out the following literary reference I provided you: "H. S. Issa, who is studying the architecture of Hatra for a Ph.D. under my supervision, for information on Hatra's vaulting techniques". Gun Powder Ma (talk) 13:01, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Gun. Unfortunately no, but when I go back to the library I will have time to look at two sources which I really only had time to skim before: (# 1) Downey, Susan B. 1988. Mesopotamian religious architecture : Alexander through the Parthians. Princeton: Princeton University Press. <--- This is an excellent academic source which I hope to utilize; it covers the Parthian iwans from what I've already read, although I didn't have time to view info on Hatra (since I had to leave the library prematurely). (# 2) Curatola, Giovanni and Gianroberto Scarcia. 2007. The Art and Architecture of Persia. Trans. Marguerite Shore. New York: Abbeville Press. <--- This latter source has a chapter I'm interested in titled "Arsaces: the Parthians and Time Denied". Also, just to let everyone know about H.S. Issa, Gun Powder Ma is citing R. A. Tomlinson: "The Architectural Context of the Macedonian Vaulted Tombs," The Annual of the British School at Athens, Vol. 82 (1987), pp. 305-312 (310). Don't worry Gun, I'll try my best, and I will scour these two sources in hopes of discovering the true level of Parthian influence versus Roman influence in Hatran architecture. Cheers.--Pericles of AthensTalk 17:00, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Take your time, your article is good so this minor question should not detract from its general quality.
For Trajan's motivation, and many other aspects of his Parthian campaign, this article is also useful: C. S. Lightfoot: "Trajan's Parthian War and the Fourth-Century Perspective", The Journal of Roman Studies, Vol. 80 (1990), pp. 115-126
Have you checked out the two maps in Roman Armenia? Useful? Gun Powder Ma (talk) 19:15, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Great! Do you have a PDF file of that article, perchance? It could be very useful in addition to the book about Trajan's Parthian War that I'm going to check out at the library. As for the maps in the article Roman Armenia, I like this map a lot; it is well-sourced, licensed, and is very clear (without too many text labels crowding the viewable terrain). I may have to make room in the article for it somehow, although there are already a good amount of images crowding the available space. As for the 1907 map of the Roman Empire at its greatest extent, it states that this was Rome in the 3rd century AD, but Septimius Severus invaded Mesopotamia at the very end of the 2nd century, not the beginning of the 3rd. Although Caracalla subjugated Armenia and Osroene and made them Roman provinces at the beginning of the 3rd century, he did not do the same for the Mesopotamian heartland, so the map wouldn't accurately reflect his territorial gains either. In the meantime, I've listed the article "Roman Armenia" as a useful link under the section "Continuation of Roman hostilities and Parthian decline".--Pericles of AthensTalk 22:00, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I mean this map. I know Cplakidas to be a map creator as scrupulous and neutral as one can be. You definitely need to link to Roman–Parthian War of 58–63, too. Drop me an email for the Trajan article. Regards Gun Powder Ma (talk) 22:50, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Cool! I sent you an email and can't wait to read Lightfoot's article. The wiki link for the 58-63 war (during Nero's reign) is actually already located in the article, i.e. in the second paragraph of the subsection "Continuation of Roman hostilities and Parthian decline". As for the 58-60 AD invasion map, this DEFINITELY needs to be in the article! It looks fantastic; plus, the general reader may get confused from time to time about the ancient place names in the article, so more visual aids such as this detailed regional map would be very useful. I'll see if I can make some room for it in the subsection I just mentioned. Cheers!--Pericles of AthensTalk 23:30, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again, GPM. I have read Lightfoot's article and cited him in the article. I found the source useful in reaffirming a few things, as well as clarifying when Nisibis was taken; however, I was a bit disappointed to see that he did not go into lengthy discussion about Trajan's personal or political motivations for war. For that I will probably have to head back to the library. As it stands now, however, the article is in very good shape and I don't think there are any major hangups as of now.--Pericles of AthensTalk 22:25, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: Comprehensive and neutral (in contrast to the expat nostalgia of some other articles on Iranian empires and kings). The general approach may be a bit too descriptive (long stretches are event history), but this can be put mostly down to the necessity of the author to play by the constraints of the WP style which harbours a naive belief in 'just let the facts speak' and suspects more serious attempts at analysis to be subjective and interpretative. This aside, personally, I would like to know why the Parthian empire has beeen traditionally viewed by Iranian historography as kind of step child, much less in esteem than the great Achaemenids and the aggressive Sassanids, although the Parthian were more long-lived than the former and smarter than the later dynasty. But this may, of course, be again a task judged to be too interpretative for the WP format. ;-) Gun Powder Ma (talk) 12:16, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps it is, although I suspect that this might have something to do with the Arsacid dynasts themselves. That is, their Parni origin and not hailing from Persia proper, along with the heavy adoption of Greek culture during the first half of the empire's history and the Arsacid line ultimately living on through Armenian kings instead of Persian ones. Again, this is only my conjecture. Cheers and thanks for reviewing the article!--Pericles of AthensTalk 23:32, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on sources

The Walter Posch book looks like a German-language text. If so, this should be stated: (in German)
Otherwise all sources look OK. Brianboulton (talk) 20:39, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cool! Thanks for checking and suggesting the use of the icon; it has been added. Cheers.--Pericles of AthensTalk 22:25, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Have the images been reviewed? If not, please locate an image reviewer. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:42, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, if I knew where to locate a reviewer! :) Perhaps you could point me in the right direction? Thanks.--Pericles of AthensTalk 22:25, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
User:Jappalang often responds to requests. Karanacs (talk) 16:40, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I wrote a request for an image review on his talk page. Regards.--Pericles of AthensTalk 18:04, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Underwhelmed, but not opposing. Tony (talk) 12:33, 22 May 2010 (UTC) It's just hard to engage with. I haven't looked properly after the lead. It's narrative language is clunky, chocked full of unfamiliar names and places. I suppose it's hard to avoid, but I'm not even interested yet, and my brain is choking with them. The prose is OK, I suppose. Sorry to be so unhelpful.[reply]

  1. Lead caption: The extent ....
  2. Why caps for Monarchy in the infobox? And Antiquity? Do we really need the currency to be named in the infobox? That's for modern nations, surely? Check the MoS: it would be nicer to write the BC and AD on the same side of the numerals in the infobox.
  3. "Satrapy"—the readers shouldn't have to hit the link to know what it means. Insert (province) after it? Then we see a linked "satraps": same issue, and why do we need to cope with two very similar words that lead to the same article?
  4. I think a link to (modern) "Iran" is misleading. Why not just leave it at the linked "Iranian peoples", at the opening?
  5. Beware that most readers, me included, will easily become cluttered with all of these names and places and moves and this and that. It's very mechanical in that respect, right at the start. It's not inspiring me to read on: the lead might position more interesting points first? I mean, why should we give a toss about the Parthian Empire?
  6. Chain-linking of "Iraq" just after a more specific city link? Try not to bunch. Tony (talk) 10:04, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7. "incredibly"—not an encyclopedic epithet.
  8. The "also" in the last para could be binned.
  9. "Parthian art also reveals much about the lifestyles and traditions of the Parthians." Well, what art doesn't reveal a lot about the society in which it was produced?
  10. "Arsacids"—these were the subjects of Arsaces I?
  11. The MoS says double quotes.

Hi Tony. You write: "but I'm not even interested yet, and my brain is choking with them". Well, if Near Eastern and Iranian history bore you to tears, I truly have to wonder why you're bothering to review this article! Lol. It sounds like you're having a stressful day; perhaps a Wikibreak would be helpful.

  1. Fixed the caption.
  2. Fixed the words needing small caps; I see nothing wrong with including the form of currency, which is discussed in the article. WP:MOS says: "AD may appear before or after a year (AD 106, 106 AD); the other abbreviations appear after (106 CE, 3700 BCE, 3700 BC)." Therefore, I see no outstanding reason to change it. The rest of the article does place "AD" after the year, but when you do this in the infobox, for some reason you get a red, dead category link at the bottom of the page for Category:AD 224 disestablishments.
  3. I inserted (province) in parentheses and delinked "satraps" in the following paragraph.
  4. If you're referring to the first paragraph in the lead, it actually doesn't link to Iran, but a much more relevant article called Greater Iran, which discusses a cultural sphere, not a modern nation-state. Again, I think you need to take a Wikibreak.
  5. ??? I'm sure most readers who are not interested in Iranian history will visit the page due to their interest in the eastern wars of the Roman Empire; this is not only mentioned heavily in the third paragraph of the lead, but also discussed at great length in the article. Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm detecting a bit of unnecessary biting at the editor. To put it another way, could you imagine if someone reviewed an article about Australian history, and then asked the author: "Why should I give a toss about Australia?" I'm sure you would be dumbfounded by this, as would a student of Iranian history if asked a similar question about Parthia or any period of Iranian history.
  6. There is only one link in the article to Iraq, so the single link you see in the lead is certainly not excessive. Also, there is a comma between "Baghdad" and "Iraq," so I fail to see the bunching problem. Regardless, since even Iran does not have a link, I have delinked Iraq. Plus, the article for the modern-day nation state of Iraq is not highly relevant to this article, as you suggest.
  7. Removed "incredibly" as suggested.
  8. I rewrote that sentence about artwork: "Parthian artwork is viewed by historians as a valid source for understanding aspects of society and culture that are otherwise absent in textual sources."
  9. "Arsacids" usually refers to the rulers and royal family members; "Parthians" usually refers to the peoples living within the empire. I can clarify this if you'd like, perhaps in the first section since I don't think a wordy explanation about this belongs in the lead.

Cheers.--Pericles of AthensTalk 13:56, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Why should I give a toss about Australia?" I don't know: I certainly don't, and I've had to endure it for 54 years. On my difficulty in engaging with the content and style, well, I did imply it's my problem, not yours.
"if Near Eastern and Iranian history bore you to tears, I truly have to wonder why you're bothering to review this article"—I review because I care about the standards. Otherwise, I can assure you I wouldn't touch most of the nominations, including anything to do with pop culture. But I do review them. Mr Anderson below certainly shows his knowledge of the subject as a content reviewer. If only I had the knowledge. Tony (talk) 12:33, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not yet. Leaning over backwards to cheer on the Parthians, isn't it?
    • The Parthian incursion of 40 BC was much less impressive than the lead makes out; it was a raid, not an attempt at conquest, and it was only as successful as it was because the Romans were divided and the Roman commander in the East (and his armies) were off post, at Brundisium in Italy. The article and the lead say nothing of this; of course the same excuse can be made for most of the Roman successes against the Parthians.
  • On the other hand, the treatment of Trajan and Hadrian is opaque. Hadrian abandoned Trajan's conquests as untenable; this could be said (and is not) in the space now wasted on the issue of which provinces Trajan actually declared before his death - wasted space, since, declared or not, none of them actually functioned.
  • Why are we given birth and death dates for Pompey, Antony, and Caesar, and disputable regnal dates for Augustus? All of the transactions involving these men occurred in known years, which would be better stated; a reader wanting to know how old Pompey was when he settled the East can click on the link, which is what it is for. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:10, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Septentrionalis. You write "Leaning over backwards to cheer on the Parthians, isn't it?" I'm sorry, I do not follow you at all. I'm pretty sure that the article is quite neutral and well-balanced; my purpose in writing this article was not to glorify or cheerlead, only to inform and learn a few things in the process. I think you need to assume good faith.

The Parthian incursion into Roman Syria in 51 BC was certainly a raid in the truest sense; however, the incursion of 40-39 BC was much more significant. I shall quote Bivar (1983: 57-58) to clarify my point:

Quintus Labienus, an officer of Brutus and Cassius, had been sent to Parthia for reinforcements, to aid the republican cause. When after the defeat he learned that republican supporters had been condemned under the proscriptions, he joined the Parthians; and in 40 B.C. a Parthian army, under the command of the Parthian prince Pacorus and of Labienus, invaded Syria. Apamea was quickly taken, and there the invading force divided. Labienus turned north to penetrate far into Asia Minor. At the same time Pacorus, who had already gained a high reputation in the Near East both for his military talent and for justice and moderation, turned south along the coast through Syria, while his general Barzapharnes led another force further inland. All the cities along the coast, as far to the south as Ptolemais (Acre), admitted the Parthians, with the single exception of Tyre. In Judaea the leader of the pro-Parthian party was Antigonus, nephew of the High Priest Hyrcanus. The latter was in turn under the control of two Roman supporters, the Idumaeans Phasael and Herod. Antigonus sent a large subsidy to the Parthian prince, in return for military help to gain control of the province. The combined Jewish and Parthian force defeated their opponents and advanced on Jerusalem. When Hyrcanus and Phasael were persuaded to go down and negotiate with Barzapharnes they were taken into custody. Herod, hearing of their arrest, fled to his impregnable stronghold of Masada near the Dead Sea. Thus Antigonus was installed as king of Judaea, while the two prisoners were carried away to Parthia. For a moment, the whole of the Roman East seemed to be either in Parthian hands, or on the point of capture. Yet though connections between the Jews of Judaea and the Parthian empire, more especially through the Jews of Babylonia, were long to remain an important political factor, the conclusion of the second Roman civil war was soon to bring about a revival of Roman strength in Asia.

Antony, at that time the most powerful of the Roman generals, had already sent Publius Ventidius into Anatolia to oppose Labienus. Soon Labienus was driven back into Syria, and though his Parthian allies came to his support, they were caught at a disadvantage in the hill country by Ventidius and heavily defeated. When Labienus tried to escape his men were ambushed and himself taken prisoner soon afterward and put to death. At the Amanus Gates between Cilicia and Syria, the Parthian officer Pharnapates, after a fierce fight, was defeated and slain with most of his men. Late in 39 B.C., the Parthian crown prince Pacorus withdrew from Syria, and Ventidius was occupied in trying to reduce the cities that still remained pro-Parthian, but though he approached Jerusalem, did not attack it.

So the Parthians gained control of nearly all the settlements in the Levant and set up an ally in Judea by military force, and you call this a raid? If their purpose was to raid, then why did they occupy the Levant for over a year? The Parthians only withdrew from Syria after the stunning string of military successes by Ventidius. And just to let everyone know, I do make it clear that there was a civil war in the Roman world at this time; merely discussing Labienus is sufficient for that purpose. If I remember correctly, I believe Kennedy (1996) calls this invasion of 40-39 BC the only serious attempt by the Parthians to expand their empire into Rome's eastern territories, although I'll have to go back to the library to fetch a page number for you. I don't believe any of my sources mention the Roman commander being in Brundisium at the time, but I'll take your word for it; better yet, if you have a source, be bold and feel free to add this to the article.

As for Hadrian abandoning the conflict with Parthia, I shall add something to that effect in the article, since I believe my sources concur with your assertion. And for birth and death dates, I suppose you are right, although it is useful to include reign dates in order to give the reader a sense of time frames.--Pericles of AthensTalk 15:44, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See Ronald Syme's Roman Revolution - or any competent history of the Roman Civil Wars; we even manage to mention the Treaty of Brundisium ourselves. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:22, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, I've read Syme before, although I do not own his work. That could be another book to look at after I head back to the library. I forgot about Antony leaving the East to convene with Octavian in that year; does Syme explicitly mention his absence as a reason why Parthia's invasion of Syria was (briefly) successful? In the meantime, I have addressed your concerns about birth and death dates, as well as Hadrian's decision not to drain Rome's valuable resources with another invasion of Mesopotamia.--Pericles of AthensTalk 23:11, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes; as I said, Antony brought his armies with him (and did not choose to give laurels to his subordinates while he was gone). The Parthian invasion may well have affected the negotiations between the Triumvirs, btw. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:47, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Really? Now that is interesting; it also makes perfect sense. I'll have to take a close look at Syme when I head back to the library, possibly by tomorrow.--Pericles of AthensTalk 02:55, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'm here at the library, and I've got Syme's Roman Revolution (1939) in my lap as I speak, or rather, type. :) You were right about Antony; Syme does state (pp. 214-217) that Antony had to ignore the Parthian threat for the time being to face a more pressing threat from Octavian in Italy. I've added a statement to the article using Syme which now reflects this idea. This is a very interesting episode, and Syme does a wonderful job describing how the soldiers pretty much mutinied and refused to fight, forcing the triumvirs into negotiations.--Pericles of AthensTalk 22:43, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support As usual, an excellent article from PericlesofAthens. Wikipedia would certainly benefit if the Persian dynasties became elevated to FA's, just as the Chinese dynasties were. One question though: where is the section on the Parthian economy? Or was there too little information on it to work with? Anyways, good and well-researched work.Teeninvestor (talk) 20:37, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Teeninvestor, thanks for the support! If you look above to my conversation with Johnbod, you'll read about why I did not include any significant amount of information on socioeconomics: there's just not enough source material available! But this is a systemic problem for Parthian history that extends beyond coverage of economics. We still know so little about the Parthians, most of it from Greek and Roman historians. Although I already have a small section on currency, let me see what I can do about economics, although I can't promise much since there's not much to say. In the meantime, I've added some new things about commercial trade items in the history section. Cheers.--Pericles of AthensTalk 22:43, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments – Few quickies from me, having looked at the first few sections...

  • "However, Mark Antony led a counterattack into Parthia; these continued...". I don't see the plural element that would support "these"; is this meant to say there were multiple counterattacks?
  • Origins and establishment: "spoken at the time in Parthia. Parthia...". Try to avoid word repetition in this manner.
  • "After spending some time in exile amongst the nomadic Apasiacae tribe". For simpler language, switch "amongst" to "among", if the meaning will remain intact.
  • "but he negotiated a peace settlement with Arsaces II. Arsaces II...". More repetition like the example above.
  • "and his newly-founded city". No hyphen after -ly, unless there's a compounding element; I don't see one here. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 01:47, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Giants. I've addressed your immediate concerns with the article's prose; I hope my copy-editing will suffice. Cheers.--Pericles of AthensTalk 02:03, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some work needed for images:

Forget this one! Book of Esther is clearly linked in the caption & it is ridiculous to demand a full iconographic analysis for a caption to a picture making a purely stylistic point. Johnbod (talk) 23:38, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Correct; the image's purpose is to demonstrate Parthian-style frontality in artwork; particularly to demonstrate that such a trend was still alive at Dura-Europos in the 240s AD when the images were painted. It is important because Dura-Europos was originally a Parthian city that was captured by the Romans during Marcus Aurelius' invasion in the 160s AD and deserted by the Sassanids in the 250s AD. Luckily, structures like the Dura-Europos synagogue were well-preserved for almost two thousand years by being literally buried underneath sand. In any case, the 2-D image clearly belongs to the public domain given the age of the artwork.--Pericles of AthensTalk 01:08, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The issue is not the provenance of the fresco; it is about allowing the user to verify where the image comes from (and as such to the nature of the image, not the fresco). This has nothing to do with the caption, it is about the statement on the image page: "Illustration: Scenes from the Book of Esther". Thus, it is quite unclear whether this image is a scan from a book, a photo taken of the work at Yale, or from somebody's web page. Jappalang (talk) 04:44, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Now that you mention it, the description does seem a bit ambiguous. I have contacted User:Udimu on his talk page over at Wikimedia Commons and posted a message about this issue; hopefully he will follow up with a quick response.--Pericles of AthensTalk 13:39, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) That was not exactly clear from your first comment, to put it mildly! There is no source on the photo, but the washed-out colour etc makes it pretty clear that is a scan from one of hundreds of books that have printed the picture library images over the years. The work is now in the National Museum of Damascus, & I don't think it has ever left Syria. "Scenes from the Book of Esther" is a title for the image; I'm not quite clear what your problem with it is. Johnbod (talk) 13:56, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It would be best to sort them out. Jappalang (talk) 21:26, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jappalang, how's it going. So far I've left a message on User:Quadell's talk page over at Wikimedia Commons about File:LocationParthia.PNG and File:Map Parthian Empire-fr.png. While I'm waiting for a reply, I'll take a look at these other images you've mentioned. Cheers.--Pericles of AthensTalk 00:51, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(1) For now, just to be safe, I've removed the Seleucid and Sassanid maps from the article's infobox. Over at Wikimedia Commons, it appears that many of the available maps for the Seleucid and Sassanid empires are not properly sourced! At least not from what I've seen.
(2) As for the dates of the artworks seen in (2.1) File:Marcus Licinius Crassus Louvre.jpg, (2.2) File:Augustus Prima Porta (detail).PNG from File:Statue-Augustus.jpg, (2.3) File:Iran-bastan-32.jpg, and (2.4) File:Arm less man edit 3.jpg, I shall address each one separately. (2.1) First, Marcus Licinius Crassus's bust at the Louvre, Paris, France: it is a genuine Roman-era bust of Crassus, so who cares what exact date the artwork was commissioned? It is ancient, perhaps contemporary with his life, that's all that matters. (2.2) As for the quite famous statue Augustus of Prima Porta, it was not discovered and studied by modern art historians until the 19th century, but it is a genuine Roman work of art made during Augustus' reign period; it is in fact a giant marble piece of propaganda aimed at convincing fellow Romans that Parthia had submitted to Rome without a fight (see Brosius: 2006). (2.3) I think pinpointing the exact year that a ceramic oil lamp was crafted is a pointless pursuit unless one has direct evidence (such as inscriptions on the object itself) providing at least a clue or hint, such as a person's name or historical event, if not an actual inscribed date. The fact that this ceramic oil lamp was made in Khuzestan sometime during the Parthian Empire is all that matters, especially considering the dating and chronological problems we have with many Parthian source materials and events. (2.4) Again, the very same thing could be said about the Parthian bronze statue from Khuzestan province, Iran. This statue certainly doesn't need an exact date, since even the clothes and hairstyle the man is wearing has been analyzed by historians (Brosius: 2006; Curtis: 2007; Schlumberger: 1983) and described as the typical Parthian riding outfit, the same one worn by figures in raised-relief images on various Parthian drachma coins.
Having a simple provenance (i.e. estimated year[s]) of the items stated on their pages would be helpful to re-users of the images; we cannot expect them to wander to this article to learn of it. The image pages should contain brief information to inform other users of the subject's nature. I brought up this issue for informative purposes more than of copyrights (if any). Jappalang (talk) 04:44, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(3) We'll see about the Mithridates II coin image; I suspect that everything is fine if it has already gone through OTRS and been verified at Wikimedia.--Pericles of AthensTalk 07:02, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(4) Update: I've decided to replace File:Map Parthian Empire-fr.png with File:Parthia 001ad.jpg, which lists its sources as John Nelson's Interactive Historical Atlas of the World and Encyclopaedia Iranica's article on Parthia. It has a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported license. I believe this removes the last truly questionable image from the article, in terms of reference problems.--Pericles of AthensTalk 16:04, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Comment - reading through now. Please revert if my copyedits inadvertently guff the meaning. I'll jot notes below. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:55, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sure! Take your time; you're very good at restructuring long sentences with clear, concise language. Cheers.--Pericles of AthensTalk 00:38, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
heh, cheers. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:38, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Numerous sources have been used to reconstruct Parthian history, including local and foreign written accounts, as well as non-textual artifacts - why not "Local and foreign written accounts, as well as non-textual artifacts have been used to reconstruct Parthian history" ?
Good suggestion! I've replaced the original with your version.--Pericles of AthensTalk 05:11, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*notedly -> notably?

You know what? It was originally "notably" but it was changed when someone copy-edited the article. I didn't think much of it, but now that you mention it, I've switched it back to "notably". Cheers!--Pericles of AthensTalk 05:11, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't get a good feel for theThe Religion section about the mythology of the Parthian people and who worshipped what. I am guessing because our knowledge is a little flimsy. Are there any uniquely Parthian deities and/or legends that can be linked to? Do we know whether the religions followed geography - i.e. Persian in the east and Greek in the west?
These are great questions! There was nothing "uniquely" Parthian per say, unless there were gods exclusively worshiped by the ancient Parni tribe (i.e. the nomadic ethnic group of the ruling Arsacid dynasty). There were certainly unique local deities worshiped in the small region known as Parthia in what is now northeastern Iran and Turkmenistan. However, I don't believe there were any national deities apart from deified Arsacid rulers. Whether or not Greek cults were more widespread in the western half of the Parthian Empire is unclear to me; keep in mind that Greek culture was spread into Iran as much as it was Iraq during the Seleucid Empire.--Pericles of AthensTalk 05:11, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good points - thanks for clarifying. Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:47, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Overall, the prose is good and I think it is nearly there barring a couple of queries above. Nice work. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:00, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the compliment and the excellent work you've done! Regards.--Pericles of AthensTalk 05:11, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weakish support after my comments at the top. I rather share the concerns of Tony and PMAnderson, but on a big and unwieldy subject I think the article meets FA standards. I suspect one could read most of the big fat books used without being much the wiser on the obvious gaps in coverage. Johnbod (talk) 22:53, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You're an honest dude; thank you. I felt that this topic was deserving of attention at the least, since so many here will be interested in Roman history, or Iranian history for that matter. I just hope that my work stands as a solid, useful article for anyone wanting to acquaint themselves with the history of the region at this particular point in time. I tried to include a bunch of different sources in order to avoid bias or worse, interpreting one source incorrectly. Perhaps there is a lack of economic information, but that seems fairly natural given the lack of primary source material we have on Parthian history. In any case, thanks for taking the time to read the article and respond thoughtfully. Cheers!--Pericles of AthensTalk 05:10, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support. My passing scan of the above text suggests there's no image issues there that should stop this from proceeding, though i've not gone through them myself. I did some source checking of Bivar 1983, which appeared to check out. I have one prose quibble: "...married his daughter Rhodogune of Parthia to him" is an odd phrase. Apart from sounding cumbersome, and the subject not being named in the sentence, it sounds as though Mithridates was the actual celebrant, which is hardly the point (and probably wasn't true). Can someone have a stab at reconfiguring this? hamiltonstone (talk) 03:39, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Hamiltonstone! I just got back home from a bar in D.C., am quite sloppy drunk at the moment and have to work in the morning (yikes!), but somehow, by the beard of Zeus, I managed to rewrite (or reconfigure as you awesomely put it) the questionable sentence: "Despite early successes, the Seleucids were defeated and Demetrius himself was captured by Parthian forces and taken to Hyrcania. There Mithridates treated his captive with great hospitality; he even married his daughter Rhodogune of Parthia to Demetrius." This sounds pretty clear now, right? A semicolon works wonders; like it did just now! Cheers and beers from the US to Australia; I'll have to see Canberra one of these days!--Pericles of AthensTalk 05:10, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Parthian_Empire/archive1&oldid=1136096163"