Talk:Sasanian Empire/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Recommendations to Map workshop team

--Keeby101 (talk) 07:36, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

The RfC request has been reformed for clarity (see below) and the original RfC request can be see herein

So about a month and a half ago I became a user on Wikipedia and went directly into map making and had gone onto talk pages. One of these talk pages was this one to which I started a discussion on after 5 days of being a user on Wikipedia. The result being that I unwittingly started an edit war that I later apologized for a few days ago and again I say I am extremely sorry for that. :) Two weeks ago, I told everyone that I would take this situation to the map workshop, and I put in a request for a new map and one of the Graphists took a look at all of the past discussion on the map of the Sasanian Empire including the most recent one that was started by me when I was a new user and told me and I quote to do the following: Start a new, calm, well thought out discussion on the article talk page for just this purpose, contribute your own position, and let other editors contribute theirs. If you can achieve a proper consensus amongst editors as to exactly what this map should show, then link this request to that consensus. The following statements above that were stated by the Graphists & Cartographers of the Wikipedia Map Workshop is why I am here. I took a look at the infobox map of the Achaemenid Empire: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:AchaemenidEmpireTerritorialExpanision.jpg and I honestly like how it is done. It shows the territorial evolution and the empire at it's greatest extent. On top of that it has a more physical background than the current map of the Sasanian Empire in the infobox. This is a map of the Khazar Empire that I would like to use as an example for this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Chasaren.jpg. Notice that this map also has a more physical background to it and shows the territorial evolution of the empire as well as the empire at it's greatest extent. Bottom line. I would like to reach a consensus on a new map of the Sasanian Empire being made by the Cartographers from the Map Workshop of Wikipedia being made in this format that the Achaemenid and Khazar Empire maps are formatted in which I showed above. Regards! :D Keeby101 (talk) 22:04, 26 August 2013 (UTC) Agreed. --HistoryofIran (talk) 13:33, 27 August 2013 (UTC) Awesome! Does anyone else agree with these recommendations that I have proposed? Keeby101 (talk) 15:39, 2 September 2013 (UTC) This conflict can be easily solved by picking an authoritative work on the Sasanian Empire, my favourite, which I found in 5 minutes after googling "Sasanian" is a map by the German professor of pre-Islamic history of Iran Erich Kettenhofen published in the Tübinger Atlas des Vorderen Orients.--Kathovo talk 11:56, 4 September 2013 (UTC) That's another option. A pretty good one too! I propose this, since I did put in a request on the Map Workshop for a map of the Sasanian Empire in this format: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Chasaren.jpg , how does this sound? To be fair and to give other users on the talk page time to respond to this topic: If no consensus on regards to the recommendations to the Map Workshop Team is reached by the end of the month or the next two months, we will use the map that Kathovo proposed. Sound good? Cheers! Keeby101 (talk) 17:21, 4 September 2013 (UTC) Fair enough for me.--Kathovo talk 08:02, 6 September 2013 (UTC) Alright everyone! I'm back again. I just wanted everyone to know that I'm still here. I again propose that we have a new map of the Sasanian Empire made by the Cartographers from the Map Workshop of Wikipedia being made in this format that the Achaemenid and Khazar Empire maps are formatted in which I showed above. Reason being is because it would be much better to have a map of the Sasanian Empire that shows it's territorial evolution just like how the Achaemenid and Khazar Empire maps show. :) On top of that, I have done some extensive research on the Sasanian Empire itself. I will post the information and cite the sources for it in a little while. Regards and cheers! :D Keeby101 (talk) 17:22, 3 November 2013 (UTC) Alright, here is the information on the Sasanian Empire that I have gathered. Directly quoting from a section from my talk page, here it is: Yes, the Persians lost nearly all of their Central Asian and Indian holdings to the Hepthalites. Yes, Transoxiana came under control of the Gokturks after the Hepthalites were defeated, BUT, the peace between the Gokturks and the Sasanians did not last long at all nor did the borders as the Gokturks began to disrupt Sasanian income from the Silk Route and threatened the Sasanian Empire from the northeast. Thus sparking the First Perso-Turkic War in which the Sasanian army, led by Bahram Chobin defeated and conquered all of Transoxiana along with most of the territory the Gokturks held. It wasn't until after the Byzantines and Gokturks both defeated the Sasanian Empire in the Byzantine–Sasanian War of 602–628 that the boundary of the Sasanian Empire in the Northeast officially became the Oxus river That being said, here is what the Sasanian Empire actually looked like at it's greatest extent: Accurate borders of the Empire at it's greatest extent And here are my sources to back it up: Chosroes II continues his victorious career, conquering Egypt and Asia Minor and occupying both Alexandria and also Chaceldon across the Bosporus from Constinanople. In this campaign the Persians broke through Byzantiums's eastern provinces; in 609, they reached Chaceldon, directly facing the capital, and their triumphal progress, far more serious than before, occupied the first part of the reign of Herakleios. Chosroes II of Persia who owed his throne to Maurice, declared war on the muderer of his benefactor. Persian armies were victorious in Mesopotamia and Syria, capturing the fortress towns of Dara, Amida Haran, Edessa, Hierapolis and Aleppo, though they were repulsed from Antioch and Damascus. They then overran Byzantine Armenia and raided deep into Anatolia through the provinces of Cappadocia, Phrygia, Galatia, and Bithynia. Byzantine resistance collapsed. A Persian Army penetrated as far as the Bosporus. Antioch and most of the remaining Byzantine fortresses in Syria and Mesopotamia and Armenia were captured(611). After a long seiges, the invaders took Damascus (613) and Jerusalem (614). Chosroes then began a determined invasion of Anatolia (615). Persian forces under General Shahen captured Chaceldon on the Bosporus after a long siege (616). Here the Persians remained, within one of of Constintanople, for more than 10 years. Meanwhile, they captured Ancyra and Rhodes (620); remaining Byzantine fortresses in Armenia were captured; the Persian occupation cut off a principal Byzantine recruiting ground. After defeating Byzantine garrisons in the Nile Valley, Chosroes marched across the Lybian Desert as far as Cyrene. These victories cut off the usual grain supplies from Egypt to Constantinople. Under Chosroes II the Persians virtually eliminated the Byzantines from all their Asiatic and Egyptian provinces, expanding Sassanid dominions to the extent of the Empire of Darius. The able Persian generals Shahrvaraz and Shahin led the Sassanid armies through Mesopotamia, Armenia and Syria into Palestine and Asia Minor. They took Antioch in 611, Damascus in 613, and then Jurusalem, in 614 (sending a shock through the whole Christian world). At Jerusalem the Christian defenders refused to give up the city, and it was taken by assault after three weeks, and given over to the sack. The Persians carries off the True Cross to Ctesiphon. Within another four years they had conquered Egypt and were in control of Asia Minor, as far as Chaceldon, opposite of Constantinople on the shores of the Bosporus. No shah of Persia since Cyrus had achieved such military successes. Allow me to present to you all the sources that I cited as I clearly cannot use reflist without it showing the either outdated and/or unreliable sources that I presented in the edit war that happened months ago. - (fixed - use {{Reflist-talk}} (with |close=1) on talkpages instead... Begoon talk 02:37, 4 November 2013 (UTC)) References NOTE: The sources that I quoted from are the sources that cannot be linked due to them not being available to read on the internet. The sources that I cited and quoted from were from books at my local libraries. Regards. :) Also, on regards to me citing www.iranicaonline.org as one of my sources, even Kathovo acknowledged that website was a reliable source when he and I had a conversation on this topic. See here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Keeby101#My_Grand_Proposal_1_reformed.21 Keeby101 (talk) 19:19, 3 November 2013 (UTC) Hi everyone! Been awhile. I just wanted to let you all know that I'm still here! :D To anyone who comes across this talk page, feel free to comment on this topic. If a consensus is reached here, then the Wikipedia Map Cartographers will make a new and accurate map of the Sasanian Empire. Keeby101 (talk) 19:59, 16 December 2013 (UTC) I'd like to contribute but this thread is so convoluted and confusing I'm going to pass. While I'm here though, I'll offer some tips on how to conduct a successful RfC that will draw editors in. Give a clear, short summary of the issue (skip the story telling) Make a distinct proposal and ask for a support or oppose answer. Don't use bold to emphasize your points (its like shouting) Don't include walls of text listing sources that others will need to read before they give their input Don't include discussion and talk posts dated months before the RfC even started Don't include comments like: "OK if a month goes by and there is no consensus then we'll do XYZ" and then come back months later and still be asking for more input to support your favored outcome. In other words, keep it simple, honest and straight forward. Good luck and welcome to WP it's a learning process for all of us! Happy holidays! -- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:36, 23 December 2013 (UTC) Thank you for the advice! I will probably make start a part 2 discussion on this talk page if no one responds soon. Happy Holidays everyone! :D Keeby101 (talk) 05:32, 25 December 2013 (UTC) To fellow editors who come across this, comment on part 2 of this discussion that I started below. Also Legobot can close this one! :D Keeby101 (talk) 22:12, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Revised RfC proposal

• Keeby101 (talk) 21:52, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Not too long ago. I put in a request to the Map Workshop Team to make a new and more accurate map of the Sasanian Empire! We need a much better map, preferably one that looks like this:

• 
  Example for style
• 
  Example for style

We need a map that shows the territorial evolution of the Empire! Take a look at the Khazar Empire map shown above. Honestly, I like how it is done. It shows the territorial evolution and the empire at it's greatest extent. Not only does it show the empire's territorial evolution, but it has a more physical background than the current map of the Sasanian Empire in the infobox.

On top of that, I had done some extensive research on the Sasanian Empire itself. The Persians did indeed lose nearly all of their Central Asian and Indian holdings to the Hepthalites. Transoxiana did come under control of the Gokturks after the Hepthalites were defeated, BUT, the peace between the Gokturks and the Sasanians did not last long at all nor did the borders as the Gokturks began to disrupt Sasanian income from the Silk Route and threatened the Sasanian Empire from the northeast. Thus sparking the First Perso-Turkic War in which the Sasanian army, led by Bahram Chobin defeated and conquered all of Transoxiana along with most of the territory the Gokturks held.

It wasn't until after the Byzantines and Gokturks both defeated the Sasanian Empire in the Byzantine–Sasanian War of 602–628 that the boundary of the Sasanian Empire in the Northeast officially became the Oxus river.

That being said, here is what the Sasanian Empire actually looked like at it's greatest extent:

• 
  Accurate borders of the Empire at it's greatest extent

And here are my sources to back it up:

Map of the Sasanian Empire 600 A.D.

Chosroes II continues his victorious career, conquering Egypt and Asia Minor and occupying both Alexandria and also Chaceldon across the Bosporus from Constinanople.

In this campaign the Persians broke through Byzantiums's eastern provinces; in 609, they reached Chaceldon, directly facing the capital, and their triumphal progress, far more serious than before, occupied the first part of the reign of Herakleios.

Chosroes II of Persia who owed his throne to Maurice, declared war on the muderer of his benefactor. Persian armies were victorious in Mesopotamia and Syria, capturing the fortress towns of Dara, Amida Haran, Edessa, Hierapolis and Aleppo, though they were repulsed from Antioch and Damascus. They then overran Byzantine Armenia and raided deep into Anatolia through the provinces of Cappadocia, Phrygia, Galatia, and Bithynia. Byzantine resistance collapsed. A Persian Army penetrated as far as the Bosporus. Antioch and most of the remaining Byzantine fortresses in Syria and Mesopotamia and Armenia were captured(611). After a long seiges, the invaders took Damascus (613) and Jerusalem (614). Chosroes then began a determined invasion of Anatolia (615). Persian forces under General Shahen captured Chaceldon on the Bosporus after a long siege (616). Here the Persians remained, within one of of Constintanople, for more than 10 years. Meanwhile, they captured Ancyra and Rhodes (620); remaining Byzantine fortresses in Armenia were captured; the Persian occupation cut off a principal Byzantine recruiting ground. After defeating Byzantine garrisons in the Nile Valley, Chosroes marched across the Lybian Desert as far as Cyrene. These victories cut off the usual grain supplies from Egypt to Constantinople. Under Chosroes II the Persians virtually eliminated the Byzantines from all their Asiatic and Egyptian provinces, expanding Sassanid dominions to the extent of the Empire of Darius.

The able Persian generals Shahrvaraz and Shahin led the Sassanid armies through Mesopotamia, Armenia and Syria into Palestine and Asia Minor. They took Antioch in 611, Damascus in 613, and then Jurusalem, in 614 (sending a shock through the whole Christian world). At Jerusalem the Christian defenders refused to give up the city, and it was taken by assault after three weeks, and given over to the sack. The Persians carries off the True Cross to Ctesiphon. Within another four years they had conquered Egypt and were in control of Asia Minor, as far as Chaceldon, opposite of Constantinople on the shores of the Bosporus. No shah of Persia since Cyrus had achieved such military successes.

The Persians advance continued, though, and before Heraclius could restore central authority, they had captured much of the empire outside the capital district, including Mesopotamia, Syria, and part of Anatolia; in 614 they took Jerusalem and carried off the True Cross to Ctesiphon. At the same time, the Avars and Slavs marched on the empire from the north and captured most of Thrace and much other imperial territory there. By 615 the Eaastern Roman Empire retained only the capital district, part of Anatolia, Egypt and Africa. In 617, the Avars, evidently in alliance with the Persians, attacked the city from the north and put it under siege. In 618 the Persians invaded Egypt, taking Alexandria in 619 and cutting off the main grain supply to Contantinople. The Roman Empire was at it's lowest point in history and seemed doomed to fall.

Chosroes II (590-628), the grandson of Chosroes I, experienced extraordinary fluctuations of fortune. At the outset of his career he achieved astonishing successes against the empire of Constantinople. Three times (in 608, 615, and 627) his armies reached Chalcedon, which is over against Constintanople; he took Antioch, Damascus, and Jerusalem (614), and from Jerusalem he carried off a cross, said to be the true cross on which Jesus was crucified, to his capital Ctesiphon. In 619, Chosroes II conquered that facile country, Egypt.

First Roman Amrmenia was captured by Khusro II, and in 604 CE with blazing speed, his two generals Shahin and Shahrwaraz conquered Syrai. Palestine and then Egypt were taken in 619 CE, and the Persians even went as far as Libya, while Anatolia was conquered in 619-622 CE. This shocked the eastern Roman Empire, which in 610 CE had made Heraclius its emperor.

The Gok western Turkish kingdom was steadily rising in military power and political influence. The once-mighty Hepthalites now served as vassals in the armies of the Turks. By 588, a very large Turko-Hepthalite force invaded northeastern Persia, overrunning the Gorgan wall. An emergency was convened at Ctesiphon to asses the threat. The Military council agreed to post Bahram Chobin, a Savaran commander from the Mehran Clan of Rayy, to lead a small counterattacking force. As soon as he was elected as battle leader, Bahram and the high command "hand picked" a force of 12,00 men, all of whom were reputedly 40 years of age. Careful to avoid the rashness of King Peroz nearly a century before, Bahram made every effort to obtain detailed military intelligence before launching the counterattack. A spy posing as a peace missionary was sent to the west Turkish Khagan. After comiling detailed information on the military composition and equipment of the Turko-Hepthalite forces, the spy fled the Khagan's camp at night. Bahram Chobin's forces were now fully informed of the Khagan's military dispositions, deployment, and strengths. The small Sasanian force st out from Nev-Shapur to confront the Turko-Hepthalite armies in Korassan. As the Savaran struck into the Turko-Hepthalites, Bahram and the Pahlavan knights headed straight towards the Khagan. The Turks proved unable to stop them. Bahram and the Pahlavan knights soon reached the Khagan's position. They then engaged the Khagan's bodyguards and destroyed them. Meanwhile, the Dailamite heavy infantry would have followed behind the Savaran and "mopped up" the surviving (probably disorganized) Turko-Hepthalites. The immediate consequence of the defeat was the expulsion of the Turko-Hepthalites from Balkh. The city of Herat was also cleared of the Turko-Hepthalites by 589. Having completed the conquest of the western Turks, Bahram now crossed the Oxus River and defeated the eastern Turks. The eastern Turkish Khagan was also killed during these operations. The Sassanian Empire was now the master of Central Asia, with China gaining ascendancy to the east of the region.

The Turks in Central Asia decided to exploit the Sasanian Empire's military preoccupation to the west. Just as Sassanian cavalry were entering Egypt in 619, the Turks and their Hepthalite subjects struck into Korassan in northeast Iran and into Afghanistan. The empire reacted swiftly by dispatching a Sasanian army led by Armenian general Smbat Bagratuni and his contingent of 2,000 Armenian Savaran. The Turks were defeated in Tus, Khorassan, obliging them to withdraw into Central Asia. Bagratuni left a very small contigent of 300 men under Datoyan, a Sassanian prince. Bagratuni's army then moved west. Nevertheless, the Turks and Hepthalites were still intact as a fighting force and took advantage of Bagratuni's departure. A full-scale invasion tore again into Khorassan, wiping out Datoyan's tiny garrison. The Turks and Hepthalites penetrated deep into the Iranian plateau, as far as Isfahan and Rayy. The Turks soon withdrew after collecting their plunder. Bagratuni returned, but this time decided to repeat the campaigns of Bahram Chobin conducted 30 years earlier. The Sassano-Armnian Savaran cavalry struck into Central Asia. The Turko-Hepthalite army was defeated and the Turkish Khagan was killed. The many of the fleeing contigents were slain by the Savaran. Armenian sources report Turko-Hepthalite forces at around 300,000 troops or higher, although such high numbers are unlikely. What is certain is that Baratuni's victory secured the Empire's Central Asian frontier until the Arabian conquests.

- (fixed - use {{Reflist-talk}} (with |close=1) on talkpages instead... Begoon ^talk 02:37, 4 November 2013 (UTC))

References

Bottom line. I would like to reach a consensus on a new map of the Sasanian Empire being made by the Cartographers from the Map Workshop of Wikipedia being made in this format that the Kievan Rus and Khazar Empire maps are formatted in using the basemap that depicted the Sasanian Empire's acutal borders shown above. Regards! Keeby101 (talk) 10:02, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi Keeby, nice job reformatting and clarifying your RfC. Its confusing to have the same RfC listed twice at the RfC history page so I've removed the template you posted today. I think the legebot will update the RfC page later to remove the duplicate. I've also combined the talk page threads as having two threads is also confusing to potential participants and we want to make it easy and simple so that the maximum number of editors will give their input. If you are unhappy with what I've done, let me know and we'll work it out together.

Now...... just to be clear on what you are asking of us participants. You are looking for a consensus regarding the perceived need for a new, more accurate map to be used in the infobox of this article so that you can inform the WP Map makers that the community wants a new map so they don't waste their time making a map that the community doesn't want. Is that correct?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 23:28, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes! That's it exactly! You are correct! :D Keeby101 (talk) 01:36, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes - I agree that there is a need for an improved version of the map in the infobox and encourage the WP map team to create one. I also note that per my reading of the prior versin of this RfC (see green collapsed section above) that User:Kathovo also indicated he/she saw a need for a better map.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 14:40, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Perfect! Does anyone else agree with the proposal that I have given? If so, please comment! :D Keeby101 (talk) 01:42, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

RfC reply

Agreed as long as you can pin-point reliable boundaries, go ahead and have it made. GenQuest ^{"Talk to Me"} 07:42, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Additional needed comments: to User:Keeby101. I came to this as a neutral editor as a result of a request for comment, I hope you can receive my opinion in the spirit of constructive criticism in which I offer it.

Referring to the above debates, you seem to have crossed the line from reporting sources, into OR with both your maps and misunderstanding of history. Military campaigns, even successful ones, often simply resulted in the "conquered" lands paying tithes, tributes, or ransoms, with the result of the victor withdrawing their forces and never exercising any real control over an area thereafter. To try to say otherwise is Wikipedia:Synthesis; to then try to add such areas into a map is OR and just plain wrong.

You have additional problems with your use of unreliable forum sites as "sources". This will not advance your cause either. These sites have no editorial control, no reliable sourcing of their own, and anyone can post anything there. You need to step back, and do some reading of history texts, focusing on the extent of the empire and NOT military campaigns. Skip the web-sites.

You may find in your research that much of what you are saying is, in fact, correct. However, Wikipedia, being a tertiary source, reports what is verifiably reported elsewhere, not necessarily what you or I may know to be true. For instance, if Wikipedia existed back in 1490, it would rightly report the earth is flat, even though many scholars at the time, and at least one sea captain, new differently. The available sources at the time, however, would have mostly stated: "the earth is flat." That, my friend, is the reality of Wikipedia: we can only report what our sources tell us.

I do hope this helps clear up some of your confusion in understanding the above editors resistance to your new map(s). GenQuest ^{"Talk to Me"} 19:03, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. Just be careful not to make the map too confusing. If you're modelling it on the Khazar map, showing territorial changes, the it would mean showing a lot of territorial changes, since the borders of the Sasanian Empire changed a lot more often than the borders of Khazaria. Otherwise it sounds fine to me. Rwenonah (talk) 00:19, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

I fully agree that a map is necessary, but I strongly oppose anything related to Keeby's proposals due to lack of serious research. We have been through this time and time again, and I see no improvement. There are, at least as far as the western borders with the Romans are concerned, which is my area of interest, far far more serious and dedicated studies, which are listed and used in our article on the 602-628 Roman-Persian War. I have urged anyone who wishes to get involved with this to study them, but Keeby in particular continues to ignore that. For instance, where, in the sources cited, does it say anything about Persian control deep into Transoxiana and Khwarezm? "Crossing the Oxus" and defeating the Turks there is a whole other animal than extending Persian control over same territory, again an issue that has been pointed out before. Where is there any evidence that Cyrene was occupied? Which primary source or archaeological fact backs this up? Where are the sources for the borders in the Hindukush? Why is the Indus shown as the eastern border? I could go on and on...

For a subject that has seen such controversy in this talk page, relying on sweeping over-generalisations cherrypicked from a handful of sources (and not terribly great ones at that, Dupuy's "The encyclopedia of military history : from 3500 B.C. to the present" can hardly be called an expert work on this field, and Farrokh's work has taken a lot of deserved flak for its inaccuracies) is decidedly not the way to go. Keeby (or anyone who has time and is interested in doing this) should collect information from a) contemporary primary sources and b) studies relate to the period at hand, not overview histories, which would tell us what city or province was occupied when, and whether that occupation was provisional (lasting for a campaigning season, as in Anatolia) or (intended to be) permanent, as in Egypt or Syria. It would be hard and painstacking work, but the only way to have an accurate "maximum extent" map. Otherwise, there are perfectly fine generic maps from atlases linked in discussions above, which can be used. Constantine ✍ 21:20, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

• Comment (from Map Workshop) Keeby has posted to the Map workshop to the effect that he has consensus here. Coming here, I don't see that. I see agreement that it would be nice to have a map, but no consensus on the borders we would need to show.

Most of the work is done, so if you guys do reach agreement on some borders (and associated time periods, if you want that), then please let us know there: Wikipedia:Graphics_Lab/Map_workshop#Arbitrary_section_break_3. We'd be happy to finish the graphics to an agreed specification, but it's no good without editor consensus here. If one of the atlas maps you reference above would be suitable, that should be enough for our use - other than that, whatever agreed full spec you can come up with. Thanks. Begoon ^talk 11:27, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

To make a long story short, I had made in the past a request for a map like this, with some instructions and pointers to some maps created by actual academics. The third map in particular is very good since it includes mention of the time periods where specific areas in the East (Khwaresm, Transoxiana) were under Persian control. Constantine ✍ 12:49, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello everyone, I'm back! Just as Begoon said, we all agree that a new map should be made, but we have not reached a consensus on the borders.

That being said, I propose we have a new map being made by the Wikipedia Map Workshop Cartographers in the format that the Khazar Empire map is formatted in using the basemap shown above that depicted the Sasanian Empire's actual borders as I said before.

However! I believe that the map should depict not only the territorial evolution of the empire, but the associated time periods of the territories the empire held.

Like these maps for example: Tang China 600s-700s A.D., Frankish Empire 740-814 A.D., Han China, Tang Empire 800 A.D. Bulgarian Empire 893-927 A.D.

Notice that these maps depict the territorial evolution of the empires and the associated time periods of the territories the empires held.

My personal favorites are the Frankish, Tang Chinese and Bulgarian Empire Maps. The Tang Chinese map shows the territories that the empire had direct/permanent control over and the territories that it had temporary control over, with the map showing the specific dates of when they had control over those territories. The Frankish Empire map is even more detailed than the Tang Empire map. The Frankish Empire map has a legend that tells you the territories it had direct control over and territories that were under temporary control or raided by the Franks. Same goes with the Bulgarian Empire map only the difference is that unlike the Tang Chinese and Frankish Empire maps, it doesn’t show the specific dates the empire had control over the territories it held. Instead, the Bulgarian Empire map has a legend that simply tells you the war time extent borders of the empire and territory that was under inconsistent control, much like how the Frankish Empire does, but not nearly as detailed.

With that said, the new Sasanian Empire map should depict similar to what the Tang and Bulgarian Empire’s depict. Just as the Tang Empire map depicted the Western Turks being under control of Chinese from 640-670 A.D. and then again from 692-791 A.D, the Eastern borders the new Sasanian Empire map should depict Transoxiana, Khwarezm, Hindu Kush and Balochistan being shown under control of the Persians from 225-484 A.D. and then again from 589-628 A.D. On the western borders, the map should depict all of Mesopotamia and the Caucasus as heavily disputed/contested (afterall, most of the wars between the Roman/Byzantine Empire and the Persian Empire occurred there). Just as the Frankish Empire depicted lands that were under temporary control or raided by them, Egypt should be depicted shown under inconsistent Persian control from 618-628 A.D. and much of Anatolia (as the basemap depicts) as being either heavily raided by and/or under inconsistent control of the Persians from 613-623 A.D.

Does anyone agree or disagree with my proposal? Keeby101 (talk) 01:00, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

There is one major problem: most of these maps you mention concern the history of a polity over a century or so, usually around its peak. You propose a single map covering the entire period from the early 3rd to the mid-7th century, when both the Sasanian state itself and the wider political environment had changed considerably. I would certainly prefer two maps, one for the early period (3rd-5th centuries) and one for the later (6th-7th cent.). As for the exact borders and territories under Persian control, there still remains the main problem, the matter of sources. If you can find sources that testify to Persian control in Transoxiana, Khwarezm, Hindu Kush and Balochistan for the period after 589, sure. As for Anatolia, I have answered this ad nauseam and I won't repeat it again. Constantine ✍ 09:18, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Constantine! I am not going to debate with you. I gave you the sources and you blatantly dismissed them. I made a distinct proposal just now and you again oppose it. Keep in mind that a new map being made along with the borders is not just for you alone to decide! On top of that, I showed you a few maps which covered long periods of time with the empires and the political environment undergoing just as much or even more dramatic changes than the Sasanian Empire did. One of which was a map of the Han Empire which covered the entire time period from the early 3rd century B.C. to the 3rd century A.D. The other was the Tang Empire, if you clicked both the links, then you would see that the Tang Empire underwent similar as well.

Btw, even the maps of the Sasanian Empire that you linked especially this one 620 depicts exactly what my current map (the basemap) depicts on regards to the eastern borders. That’s all that I have to say about that. Nothing more, nothing less!

Regardless, let us hear from other editors and see if they agree with my proposal or not. Keeby101 (talk) 12:50, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

• Comment I'll take the liberty of butting in again, if I may. Seems to me the problem may be that somewhere along the line someone is trying to do too much with this map. We're a tertiary source, and we rely on secondary sources, so I'd tend to favour something along the lines of what Constantine suggested, with a source from a reliable atlas. It's all well and lovely to try to provide some sort of timeline map, but if the sources don't exist to support that, it's not our business to manufacture it. Obviously, I'll be guided by consensus here, but it seems to me that simple and agreed is the preferred alternative, and I don't like the Original Research I sniff here in some of the discussion. Let us know when you all come to an agreement, and we'll finish the graphic. Oh, and Keeby, try to remember that "not personalising the discussion" thing I mentioned at the Workshop page. I think that was good advice - but then, I would, wouldn't I? - it being my advice... :) Begoon ^talk 14:45, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello again everyone! It's been awhile, I just wanted everyone to know that I am still here. Sorry for personalizing the discussion btw.

Anyway, I have been busy gathering more sources for the boundaries of my map. Also, I agree that Anatolia should not be within the borders of the map with the exception of Eastern Anatolia of course. Cheers! Kirby (talk) 11:40, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm fairly certain Balochistan was never under direct Persian control. Control in Transoxiana was very restricted too, and subject to periodic raiding from the Scythians. If you provide sources showing that these regions were under direct control, I'll be willing to believe it, but it seems an exaggeration of Sassanid power. Rwenonah (talk) 12:20, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Well, as I said before I am still gathering sources. On top of that, I did provide sources showing that these regions were under direct control of the Sasanian Empire. Even this map depicts it: 620. The only difference is that Anatolia is not shown under Persian control. Contrary to what my map depicts. :) Kirby (talk) 21:14, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

The above "basemap" shows Sasanian control extending to the Caspian Sea and Aral Sea, contrary to the map just shown. Which is true? Rwenonah (talk) 23:18, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Ok, I re-adjusted the borders of the basemap to where it depicts exactly what the map that was linked depicts. Cheers! :D Kirby (talk) 04:15, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

There's an outstanding requests for closure for this discussion, but it seems like you all are working toward a consensus. I'm not sure you need a discussion closure so much as to keep working toward a consensus. Gigs (talk) 18:49, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Please do not close the discussion! I'm still here, I've just busy gathering more sources for the borders of the basemap that's all! Cheers! :D Kirby (talk) 23:20, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Proposed new Map comparison

Alright everyone! This Rfc is over. On top of that I did create a map of my own via photoshop that I recently added into the infobox of the article:

• 
  Pre-Existing map in article
• 
  Proposed New Map by Kirby "Sassanian Empire 621 A.D."Notes: (Syria, Palestine, Egypt and Central Anatolia are shaded (under occupation)

It's not the best map, but you have got to admit it is by far better for than the old map or any map of the Sasanian Empire that has been added into the infobox of the article! Cheers!

P.S. my latest map is heavily based of this source: http://ecai.org/sasanianweb/maps/sasanianempire570.htm

Disagree. Some aspects of this new map need to be discussed and fixed. For starters, the whole terrain thing is kind of distracting. GenQuest ^{"Talk to Me"} 20:48, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Oh c'mon! I put a lot of effort into this map! It literally took me 3 months to create it!

I'll try to water down the terrain a little if that helps. Cheers! Kirby (talk) 21:14, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Hinduism

I've just noticed this section and agree entirely. I can see how you can stretch a common ancestry for Zoroastrianism and Hinduism, but stating it as plain fact is certainly going too far, likewise claiming that Hinduism was generally practiced seems implausible. I'll remove it. Andrew Gray (talk) 20:01, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Those who have some idea about Indo-European religion would better know about the deep connection of Iran and Hinduism, it was apparent until 1979.

Andrew Gray It is clear that there was no generally practiced religion in Ssanid Empire, other than Zoroastrianism. Section about Christianity is also undue and 70% of it has no citations, tagged. I think it can be removed+shortened to Other religions, there we can add the material about Hinduism that you have just removed. Bladesmulti (talk) 04:34, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Proto-Indo-Iranian religion seems substantially more cautious than "Zoroastrianism came from Hinduism"; common ancestry is not the same as A came from B! I would be very reluctant to add any of the Hinduism material back without a clear cite from something directly about religious history and not, eg, "2012 and the Shift of the Ages". Can't speak to the Christian material, but it doesn't seem to be making the same sort of dramatic over-claims that the Hinduism section does -it's clear it's only talking about smaller groups. Andrew Gray (talk) 20:54, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Information about the excavation is correct, it can be included in others.[11] Bladesmulti (talk) 12:29, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Recent changes and citations

The user User:Bladesmulti has falsified a citation from the book 'History of Civilizations of Central Asia: The crossroads of civilizations, A.D. 250 to 750'.

This user had recently made an edit to the "Other religions" subsection that "Buddhism and Hinduism were competitors of Zoroastrianism in the empire" and cited page 410 of the aforementioned book as the source. However upon investigation this book makes no such claim on page 410. In fact page 410 of this book does not mention any of these two religions at all. Farzan Marzbani (talk) 00:06, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

You have actually read History of Civilizations of Central Asia: The crossroads of civilizations, A.D. 250 to 750? Stop making nonsensical excuses for removing something that you don't like. This is one of the many times you have attempted to game the system. Bladesmulti (talk) 01:41, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Do not accuse me of bad faith. The full book is available in PDF format from UNESCO History of Civilizations of Central Asia. This is the version i checked. Farzan Marzbani (talk) 14:51, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Clearly these are two different books, being published by two different publishers. That being said, I would not state Zoroastrianism had to compete against Buddhism and Hinduism in the Sasanian empire. The source states Margiana and Bactria, therefore we should state that within those two provinces Zoroastrianism had to compete with Buddhism and Hinduism. --Kansas Bear (talk) 15:32, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes that will work too. Bladesmulti (talk) 16:40, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Tagging and dating

Exclusive tagging of various sentences and already clarified sentences seems disturbing here,[12] also we don't have to exclusively date the subjects unless they are the main subject or it is important to clarify it. Bladesmulti (talk) 08:16, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Fine, removed both. Bladesmulti (talk) 08:30, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 June 2015

Add Islamic State (De facto) in "Today part of". Remove state of Palestine, as there are already two Palestine on the list. Taras.shochenko (talk) 10:18, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Done. Rwenonah (talk) 15:08, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Origin of Sasanian-Sassanid

Not sure if I missed it, but I failed to find why the country/dynasty is called this way. The first shahanshah's name Ardashir does not seem to be the source. Does anyone know what is? - HyperGaruda (talk) 21:02, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Read Sasan. --Zyma (talk) 11:14, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Sasanian Empire. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070831002204/http://www.chn.ir:80/en/news/?section=2&id=4471 to http://www.chn.ir/en/news/?section=2&id=4471

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:46, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

war with axum

The war with axum section states that an Axumite name Abraha took over Yemen, and the throne eventually passes to his grandson Saif (Sayf), as a Sasanid vassal. Many other articles on wikipedia state that Saif was a Himyarite who, with Sasanid assistance, ended Axumite rule in Arabia. (Eg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraha, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sayf_ibn_Dhi-Yazan). This is the only article I see saying that Saif, who supposedly ended Axumite rule, was himself of Axumite extraction. Are these articles contradicting each other?

(Alternatively, it could be that Saif is of mixed extraction and different articles stress different parentage. Or that he is of Axumite extraction, but the kingdom Abraha installed in Arabia was considered distinct, non-Axumite.)Snarfblaat (talk) 02:18, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Map

Comments redacted at request of Arman ad60 - the issue appears to be closed and not relevant now anyway.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:57, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I think the map here is wrong. If you look at the map it looks like Turkey and Egypt was part of the Sasanian empire, which it was not. I think my map was right. I had placed the early map in a later section. Arman ad60 (talk) 16:17, 3 April 2016 (UTC) "Your" map states this[13], "English: routes of Ardashir I and Shapur I's war Campaigns: red arrows show Ardashir I's campaign that began from his Birthplace, Istakhr. pink arrows show campaigns of Shapur son of Ardashir I. blue arrows show Roman's Defensive campaigns Against Ardashir and Shapur Attacks. in this map, wars begin with Ardashir revolt about AD 211/212 and end in Battle of Edessa in AD 260." Which means "your" map was not meant to represent the Sasanian Empire as a whole, but to illustrate Ardashir and Shapur's military campaigns. I see nothing in your statement that would convince anyone to use "your" map over the current one. --Kansas Bear (talk) 16:24, 3 April 2016 (UTC) Well, I don't see any problem with the routes of Ardashir and Shapur. They founded the Sasanian empire. So it can be considered as a process of founding of the empire. Well the problem here with this map is that it gives an impression that Turkey and Egypt was part of the Sasanian empire. Isn't that a big point. I think that map should not be placed here. Rather it should be placed in a later section, as "temporary expansion under Khosrau". Remember Khosrau conquered these territories, but lost all of them during his reign. Arman ad60 (talk) 18:09, 3 April 2016 (UTC) The map already distinguishes these territories as "temporary". What was it you wanted again? Rwenonah (talk) 23:50, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

@Jimmy Wales: And how did Arman ad60 make that request, exactly...? _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 18:24, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

The map

Needs a source, or it should be removed. There are a number of major errors in there. For example, the name "Judea" was not used at the time, but Palaestina Prima. Oncenawhile (talk) 23:52, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Umm.. with all due respect, you are aware that Judea consisted of not only Palaestina Prima, but Palaestina Secunda and Palaestina Tertia as well? All of which was annexed by the Sasanian Empire during the War of 602-628. This article on Wikipedia alone Jewish revolt against Heraclius states such!

Bottom line is that the map should not be removed! It's good enough as it is. As I said two years ago, if there is something wrong with the map, I will address it, but I just didn't think of the name Palaestina Prima at the time I made the map. So there you have it. Regards! Kirby (talk) 05:03, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

I have to agree with Oncenawhile about the map. Just for starters, several egregious spelling errors (e.g., "Khwarmezm," "Ectabana," "Abarshar," "Kushanshar") and orthographic inconsistencies (why "Estakhr" but "Spahan"?) and to claim that the "normal" territories of the Sasanian Empire (no justification for the spelling "Sassanian" aside from repeating other people's ignorance and laziness, by the way) included not only Bactria but also southwestern Yemen and Sogdiana (!) is extremely misleading. Definitely not "good enough as it is." Slamwart (talk) 04:45, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Oncenawhile and Slamwart, particularly about spelling, it just makes the map look sloppy; I mean Egyptus, instead of Aegyptus, is bizarre. I get liking an old empire, and wanting to show it being strong, but it seems typical boundaries would be a lot more appropriate; I mean, placing Cappadocia under Sassanian control at the "greatest extent" is really little different than placing Nineveh, or the Euphrates&Tigris up to Ctesiphon at the Eastern Roman Empire's greatest extent (reigns of Maurice and Heraclius) which of course is absurd. Also my knowledge of Sasanian history pales in comparison to my knowledge of Eastern Roman History, but Yemen being under direct Sasanian control strikes me as very strange, as those were the provinces of the Arab tribes, if my memory serves. (Alcibiades979 (talk) 14:05, 26 March 2016 (UTC))

I think there should be a distinction on the map between the "max" (showing advances in Asia minor) and the Sasanid gains in the Levant and Egypt which they controlled for the better part of a decade. The current map just shows all gains during the war, not discerning between ephemeral ones and actual annexations.--Tataryn (talk) 18:36, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Some names of the cities and provinces are also wrong, plus the map doesn't really look that good. In a few months I will start making a completely new and detailed map, since I do not have time atm. --HistoryofIran (talk) 18:53, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

*Sigh* You know it is normally that I don't get sucked into this kind of drama and I do intend to end this kind of stuff as soon as possible, but alas it seems that I have once again been thrusted in by association.

I went on to Oceanwhile's talk page discussing this. I know that the map doesn't look perfect, but in truth it is the best we have had and it has remained on this article for the past two years. This subject has been brought up time and time again and to no avail. It is an endless cycle. Apparently we can't have a map that you can simply make some changes to, we keep making another map and get into an argument about it that causes another map to be made.

This is something that has been going on ever since the article was created and it intensified heavily eight years ago. Take a look back at the archives from 2008, not 2007 all the way to 2014 and you will understand what I mean.

This is exactly what I told Oceanwhile last year and it was quickly resolved.

Make no mistake, I am NOT against making minor changes to the map, the names of the cities and provinces especially. I will contact HistoryofIran about this since I can easily make changes to the names of the cities and provinces of my map. Especially since mine was created via photoshop. It will be rather easy to do so.

In the meantime, let's not discuss this any further. The last thing we need is another reiteration of what has ensued for years. Kirby (talk) 02:10, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Ok everyone, I am back after a long talk with HistoryofIran. Short and to the point, I agreed to make a new map or as a Plan B, have the Map Workshop create a new one. Cheers! Kirby (talk) 23:36, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Kirby, your attitude is pretty presumptuous. Beginning a response with "*Sigh* ...normally... ...I don't get sucked into this kind of drama..." when editors are making note of the numerous mistakes on your map, is not proper at all. You're also in no place to say "let's not discuss this any further". As long as your map is in place with its many errors, people are free to make note of them and discuss them all they want. Fix your map or else I will have to make a new one.--Tataryn (talk) 04:51, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Alright Tataryn, I apologize for my rudeness. I've already begun fixing my map. It's taking a little while, only because high quality maps like these take really long to make and fix. But I am getting it done none of the less. I will update all of you when I am close to being done fixing my ma and again when the map is finished being redone. Cheers! Kirby (talk) 04:55, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Kirby: What's up? Are you soon done? Just curious. --HistoryofIran (talk) 21:58, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm done re-adjusting the borders, still labeling the city and province names. The map will most likely be done by the end of the month. As I said before though, this map is taking a long time to get done. I'm mostly having a bit of trouble labeling all of the cities as of recent. Regardless, I'm working on it and I'm positive that by the end of this month. Cheers! :) Kirby (talk) 05:43, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

HistoryofIran I forgot to mention a few things, while I'm redoing my map, I have been labeling some city and province names in smaller font so they can fit in. I hope that's alright with you. On the eastern part of the map, I have been doing just fine labeling the cites and provinces. The only real trouble I've been running into lately is the names on the Sasanian-Byzantine border. Although this map is not accurate on the eastern portion of the empire as it does not show the eastern border being the oxus, it does show all of the cities and province names, minus the Byzantine provinces that were occupied: [https://27a0436a-a-ab15346e-s-sites.googlegroups.com/a/umich.edu/imladjov/maps/SasanidEmpire590-628.jpg?attachauth=ANoY7crkCRYAt8TwSP_59f99thIU8pxHwDwFFFM6p-clzpLB6-3cS2CQqRKO8CRBkz1znYtTy1VwhQNtyLzYfEyVP56fTj4Pqeg7zFfb7l51j-I0JzpdTvi3WG5HAM5SE7AxwMRLWbu4GFOnQa8TPa7nfEfO9NjO7GHvh4Ky1wTi8Dw2Qz0X6OB_7sxQvFk6LCupCht6nP0c2lam2VvP54WmjFNkjcBe_7EP2j7tCoZK4k8gS30YS-Q%3D&attredirects=0

That's all for now. In the meantime, I'll be redoing the rest of my map. Regards. Kirby (talk) 06:24, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Hello everyone! Been awhile. I am sorry for taking so long to make this map. There has been so much going on in my everyday livelyhood that has been getting in the way lately. But good news, the map is ready and has been put in the infobox. Now I will be updating the map even after I have uploaded it into the infobox.

If you are wondering why the province and city names are in smaller font, it's because I had to make them fit in the map since I will be adding more cities later on.

I hope everyone likes the new map. Cheers! Kirby (talk) 10:19, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Alright everyone, I have recently returned to wikipedia and I thought I'd let you all in on what's been going on since July.

LouisArgon took my inaccurate 2.0 map that I made down with this statement Per HistoryofIran's talk page; this current version of the new map contains way too many fallacies. Reverted back until Keeby finishes his 2.0 version.

So as of today I had returned to Wikipedia to see that the map in the infobox that I created was nominated for deletion on Wikimedia commons for not providing a source in the description of it like how I did on Wikipedia.

Now it's true that the map is inaccurate and it needs to be redone, but I do believe that providing sources stalled the deletion discussion.

But its because of all of these dilemma's that I've felt no choice but to turn this over to the Graphists of the Map Workshop. I have given them all of the knowledge you and HistoryofIran gave to me.

Just as I told both LoisArgon [User:[HistoryofIran|HistoryofIran]] on his talk page, I encourage all of you to go and comment on there as well and give your two cents on the matter. Perhaps provide them with any information that you haven't given to me before about the Sasanian Empire at it's greatest extent.

Here's the link to the map workshop request: Wikipedia:Graphics_Lab/Map_workshop#Sasanian_Empire_Map

Now if you all want to do an Rfc like two years ago for recommendations to the map workshop team, then by all means, I am in. :)

Regards and Cheers, Kirby (talk) 02:20, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Regards, Kirby (talk) 02:20, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Sasanian Empire. 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/20080527235437/http://www.eeb.uconn.edu/people/turchin/PDF/Latitude.pdf to http://www.eeb.uconn.edu/people/turchin/PDF/Latitude.pdf

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 17:16, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

How did you guys decide what the name of this article would be?

In my experience, "Sassanid" is the most common form. 18:20, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Sasanian Empire/Archive 2#Requested move clpo13_(talk) 18:22, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

I agree, Sassanid is the only name I ever knew of, same with the Sassanid dynasty. I fail to see a reason for the article not calling it that way as the most common English (and also other languages) form. 134.255.8.113 (talk) 13:28, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Sassanian Empire is more grammatically correct than Sassanid Empire. (unsigned post)

I disagree, it seems there is now a strong movement/campaign to rename every mention of the Sassanid Empire though, despite that that names is what most of the world and also in the English language it is known by the best. Such revisionist hyper-editing is partly why many professionals dismiss Wikipedia as a valid source. 37.191.5.234 (talk) 13:22, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Arab unrest following Hormizd II's death

"Following Hormizd II's death, Arabs from the north started to ravage and plunder the eastern cities of the empire, even attacking the province of Fars"

I think this sentence has got the geography wrong. Arabs have never existed about the eastern cities of the empire. Fars province (it's a modern-day appellation) is closer to the Western border of the empire. Narseh (talk) 06:55, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 April 2017

Typographical error: persection -> persecution"

"The collapse of the Sasanian Empire led to Islam slowly replacing Zoroastrianism as the primary religion of Iran. A large number of Zoroastrians chose to emigrate to escape Islamic persecution." Aranonbear (talk) 11:25, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Done Stickee (talk) 12:08, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Sasanian Empire. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.cultureofiran.com/b_history.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090715080555/http://www.iranologie.com/history/history5.html to http://www.iranologie.com/history/history5.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140206060011/http://www.iranologie.com/history/history5.html to http://www.iranologie.com/history/history5.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110715060819/http://occawlonline.pearsoned.com/bookbind/pubbooks/stearns_awl/chapter12/objectives/deluxe-content.html to http://occawlonline.pearsoned.com/bookbind/pubbooks/stearns_awl/chapter12/objectives/deluxe-content.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080229002719/http://www.humanities.uci.edu/sasanika/ to http://www.humanities.uci.edu/sasanika/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090715080555/http://www.iranologie.com/history/history5.html to http://www.iranologie.com/history/history5.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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 03:55, 20 May 2017 (UTC)