Talk:Artaxerxes II

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 14 January 2019 and 8 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Hotdog.exe.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 14:46, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Incest Allegations

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

Untitled

The peace stipulated in 386 b.C. by Artaxerxes is called the peace of Antalcidas. Not Antaklidas... :)—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.101.126.224 (talk • contribs) .

For future reference, if you would like to correct a typo, just click "edit this page" at the top and you can fix it yourself. You don't even need to have an account! Livajo 21:54, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I was wondering if there was a page on Mnemon, who was a character in the Illiad who failed to remind Achilles never to kill a child of Apollo. If there is such a page, could someone install a redirect on this page to that page? If not, would someone tell me so I can request it?

Age of Araxerxes II

So, was he 90 or 94 years old when he died? The current text at Artaxerxes III of Persia contradicts itself. Woodwalker (talk) 18:50, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

You mean 86 or 94? In any case there are different accounts.--Xashaiar (talk) 20:44, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, but the inconsistency is not in this article, but in the article about Artaxerxes III of Persia (three, not two). The sources may differ, but in that article his age is twice presented more or less as a fact, first 90, then 94. Woodwalker (talk) 21:46, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for informing. I will correct them. But apparently accounts of Ctesias contradicts Plutarch's. --Xashaiar (talk) 21:54, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Contradictions in dates

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

Artaxerxes II ruled in the first half of the 4th century BC. The section about his biblical portrayal however refers to dates in the middle of the 5th century. That doesn't seem to add up. Gugganij (talk) 20:20, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

This actually belongs to the article about Artaxerxes I!!! --128.131.221.176 (talk) 10:40, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

I removed the section about Artaxerxes I but someone keeps putting it back. Why??? --216.48.176.5 (talk) 21:13, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Artaxerxes II of Persia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080619124220/http://www.iranologie.com/history/Achaemenid/chapter%20V.html to http://www.iranologie.com/history/Achaemenid/chapter%20V.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:03, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Unsourced content

User:AncientEgypt23 please do not add unsourced content as you did here and here. Wikipedia content summarizes reliable sources; that is all we do here. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 16:56, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

User:Jytdog I am not my colleague editor AncientEgypt23 by the way, do you have any prove for this suggestion?

How about my latest edit, does it pass? 94.210.116.247 (talk) 23:59, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

My apologies. It is not uncommon for people to log out and continue trying to force their edits in, instead of working things out on the talk page.

About this edit, you are doing what we call original research there, giving your own thoughts about the matter. What we do here in Wikipedia, is summarize what reliable sources say. (and no it is not OK to string together things summaries from other sources to make an argument. The matter has to be discussed in the source cited). Thanks for asking. Jytdog (talk) 01:45, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

User:Jytdog Could you give the title of an article which passes the rules? 94.210.116.247 (talk) 03:35, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

This article is generally very badly sourced; it is a problem. Scholarly histories are great sources. This article should be sourced to things like ISBN 9781575061207 and ISBN 9781610693912. There are often many good scholarly articles at jstor -- here is a search. Things like that. Jytdog (talk) 03:43, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

User:Jytdog How about this summary:

The high priest Johanan mentioned in the Elephantine papyri still during the reign of Darius II and three years before the start of Artaxerxes II's reign (407 BC), also is mentioned in Ezra 10:6 after the reign of Darius (Ezra 6:1) and during the rule of Artaxerxes (Ezra 7:1).94.210.116.247 (talk) 16:48, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

User:Jytdog Thanks for your great jstor link, really interesting. Currently I am reading an article by Leo Mildenberg about Artaxerxes III, he was 86 when he wrote it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.210.116.247 (talk) 14:34, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Evert Wandelaar. Tgeorgescu (talk) 09:08, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

@Jytdog: The IP wasn't AncientEgypt23's sock, he is someone elses sock (got blocked for one year). Tgeorgescu (talk) 10:17, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

References

Move discussion in progress

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

Name

@HistoryofIran: the source (Binder 2008) says his name was Arses, not Arsaces, and Olbrycht 2021 doesn't contradict this. This appears quite straightforward. Avilich (talk) 16:31, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

On the page Olbrycht says his name was Arsaces - Arses is just one of the many variants; "Artaxerxes ii (404–359) bore the name Arsakes (Aršak), and perhaps he may be considered a ruler particularly venerated by some Arsakids.63 His name is transmitted in several variants as Arsikas/Ἀρσίκας vel Arses/Ἄρσης (Plut. Artox. 1.4), Arsakas/Ἀρσάκας (Ktesias in Photios, FGrH 688 F15 [51]), and Arsakes/Ἀρσάκης (Ktesias in Photios, FGrH 688 F15 [55]). Deinon offers the form Oarses/Ὀάρσης.64 Babylonian sources give the form Aršu,65 mirrored in Greek sources as Arses/Ἄρσης. It seems that the form Aršak is a hypocoristic from Old Persian *Ṛšā-.66" --HistoryofIran (talk) 16:44, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Binder 2008, pp. 97–98, says (Google-translated): Research - based on the belief in the authenticity of Ktesias' report - has often followed Plutarch's argument that Ktesias actually reported such things better because of his insider knowledge, so that the form of the name Arsikas was preferred. Another important indication was that the Parthians/Arsacids traced themselves back to Artaxerxes, see WIESEHÖFER, King, 59 with note 26. However, today we know from the late Babylonian astronomical texts for the years 18 to 43 of his reign (387/86 –362/61) that his actual name was ›Arses‹ (Babylon. Aršu); a compilation of these texts can be found in SACHS, Names, 132-138. The formula reads in translation: »Aršu called Artakšatsu, the king«, see SCHMITT, Throne-Names, 88; also VAN DER SPEK, Diaries, 95f. Dinon's name form - read a little differently: [o Arses] - thus reflects the original form, the forms Arsikas/Arsakes are modified by hypocoristic suffixes (*-ka-; *-ika-) from the Old Persian *Rša-¯(»man «; »hero«), Greek ... Artaxerxes II's grandson also bore the name Arses (Great King 338/37–336/35). SCHMITT has therefore rightly pointed to the naming in the successor line Darius II - Artaxerxes II - Artaxerxes III - Arses, but it clearly shows that the Achaemenids had a tradition, as in many Indo-European cultures, of a son To give grandfather's name: Ochos-Arses-Ochos-Arses (paponymy), cf. SCHMITT, Throne Names, 422-425. This thesis of SCHMITT was then impressively confirmed by Babylonian texts, see SCHMITT, Throne-Names, 92; VAN DER SPEK, Diaries, 95f. Although Plutarch disagrees, Dinon provides the better variant of the name here. Olbrycht 2021 says 'Arsaces vel Arses', which itself means he doesn't favor any of the two, but then he goes on to say that Arsaces is a diminutive, which implicitly confirms that Arses is correct. He also cites Binder on that same page, and so presumably thinks Binder is correct. Avilich (talk) 17:00, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

I mean, Olbrycht literally says that his name was Arsakes per the quote, so I don't think there's anything to argue in that regard, diminutive or not. Names do evolve after all - that would be like saying "Josh" can't be a proper personal name, since it's a diminutive of Joseph. Moreover, Olbrycht is a leading historian in Late Antiquity Iranian studies (especially Parthian), and his work is much more recent, which is also important to note considering how notoriously underresearched Iranian history used to be. --HistoryofIran (talk) 17:14, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

I agree with HistoryofIran. I see nothing to change what Olbrycht states, which is also stated by other modern sources. Perhaps placing the above quote in a note form within the article would be more productive. --Kansas Bear (talk) 17:35, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, but that's a pretty faulty interpretation considering you have to detach the phrase "bore the name Arsakes" from its entire context, from the source he cites, and from the fact that he himself says "Arsikas vel Arses" (interchangeable). I didn't say "Josh"/Arsaces is invalid as a personal name due to it being a diminutive, only that the lede should show the original form "Joseph"/Arses, and that the other one should be explained in the text. What you're effectively proposing is that a person should be formally introduced for the first time by a nickname (Josh) as opposed to the actual name (Joseph). There's no reason to prefer a 2021 source to one published in 2008, but even that line of thinking is misleading, since Binder and Olbrycht don't contradict each other. Also, Olbrycht's book is about the Parthians and only gives an overview (on that page at least) of Achaemenid naming conventions: for further reading on that subject he cites the very source (Binder 2008) you're effectively ignoring. Not to mention Binder covers Artaxerxes II specifically and in detail, is coherent and makes sense, and is a reliable source in his own right which cannot be simply dismissed out of hand. Avilich (talk) 17:47, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, but it seems like you are making more personal interpretations out of a pretty straightforward line of sentences ("Arsikas" is not the same as "Arsakes". He literally calls the other names beside Arsakes for variants). Original form or not, that was still not his name per the source. I've never said that a person should be introduced by his nickname, as I clearly stated that Arsaces/Josh is a name of its own. He cites Binder indeed, but he cites various other sources on that very page, so I'm not really sure why you're particulary focused on Binder. Moreover, historians are allowed to come with their own statements as well, independent of other historians. I'm not dismissing Binder either, but I think those are pretty important points to consider. --HistoryofIran (talk) 18:32, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

"Variant" Greek renditions or spellings of the same Persian name (Arshak), yes. The sentence you quote does not prove he regards Arsaces/"Josh" as a name in its own right, completely distinct from Arses/"Joseph"; he goes on to say the complete opposite by his use of the term "vel" and his description of "Arsaces" as a hypocorism. This is not him being inconsistent: you're the one misinterpreting a single sentence without its proper context.

I'm not the one being narrow in my choice of sources, but, if you insist that I point to others, there are the two others Olbrycht cites: Briant 2002, who refers to Arses (Artaxerxes II) in the Index of Personal Names (p. 1150), and also says (p. 986), The name (Arsu) of Darius II's first son (called Arsices by Ctesias and Oarses by Dinon: Plutarch, Art. 1.4) is confirmed by Babylonian tablets; and also Schmitt 1982, who likewise seems to agree with Binder, judging by how the latter cites him. So, either you can interpret that single sentence of Olbrycht in light of what Olbrycht himself goes on to say, and what his sources say, or you can assume that it somehow slipped his mind that he is contradicting all 3 sources he cites, or that he explicitly disagrees with them all but simply forgot to mention the fact. Avilich (talk) 20:03, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Although I still stick by what I said regarding Olbrycht, after a quick look on the sources I possess, it seems Arses is seemingly the correct variant indeed. Feel free to re-add it as you see fit. However, I still don't agree with how the lede was changed. --HistoryofIran (talk) 20:31, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Presumably you mean the changing of the order of names (given name first, regnal name second)? I'll maintain the old one if you prefer; I personally think only the regnal name should be displayed, though I figured there would be no consensus to change a long-standing feature. Avilich (talk) 20:38, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Yep. --HistoryofIran (talk) 00:37, 30 January 2022 (UTC)