Talk:Commagene

Dear @HistoryofIran, could you please explain why you felt the need to revert me 1? The Orontids are described as a a hereditary Armenian dynasty, and I really don't see a valid reason for your revert. Regards, ZaniGiovanni (talk) 06:07, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

I simply restored the information described by the multiple sources - not sure why they were removed in the first place. Just because an article says one thing, doesn't mean another article should say the same, I'm pretty sure there's a guideline regarding that. --HistoryofIran (talk) 10:30, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Dear @HistoryofIran, I think the current wording violates neutral point of view:

was an ancient Greco-Iranian kingdom ruled by a Hellenized branch of the Iranian Orontid dynasty (current version)

was an ancient Greco-Iranian kingdom ruled by Orontids, a hereditary Armenian dynasty (my version)

Orontids are described as an Armenian dynasty by sources in this article too, not only in Orontids page: Erskine, Andrew; Llewellyn-Jones, Lloyd; Wallace, Shane (2017) "Another self-designated descendant from a member of one of the seven great house, Hydarnes, was the Orontid Dynasty of Armenia"

I think my version doesn't violate NPOV and doesn't give undue weight to any of the mentioned countries (mentioning both, as both statements of "Greco-Iranian kingdom" and "Armenian dynasty" are sourced and described as such by multiple sources).

I'll restore my edit if you don't have objections. Best regards, ZaniGiovanni (talk) 09:00, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

They ruled Armenia indeed, but they were not of Armenian origin per the multiple sources. I have no objection adding that the Orontids ruled Armenia. --HistoryofIran (talk) 13:27, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Dear @HistoryofIran I'm sorry, but I didn't add anything about the origin, I just added Armenian dynasty which is true. They were an Armenian dynasty with Iranian roots (I think this is contested among historians, still doesn't matter in this case) that ruled over Armenia. What exactly in my addition disputes that?

Kind regards, ZaniGiovanni (talk) 08:46, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

I'm sorry but you did . You removed mention of them being Hellenized and of Iranian origin. Compared to the rest of the Orontid branches, the ones in Commagene were notably much more Hellenized. --HistoryofIran (talk) 01:42, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

This is my edit was an ancient Greco-Iranian kingdom ruled by Orontids, a hereditary Armenian dynasty. Info in more details as I said in my edit is in the article itelf (about the roots/etc). Right now, most important part that it was an Armenian dynasty isn't mentioned in the lede (which violated NPOV) Just because they had Iranian roots doesn't mean it becomes an Iranian dynasty (which is again, contested among historians). I think my edit is fine, I can ask for third opinion if we can't come to an agreement. Cheers, ZaniGiovanni (talk) 08:48, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

How is this contested? There are like 10 sources cited. Also, the Iranian and Greek elements of Commagene are the more or less always the ones mentioned and emphasised in sources, thus I don't see how this violates WP:NPOV. --HistoryofIran (talk) 10:37, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

My changes are in regard to Orontids not Commagene kingdom. As I said, it should be mentioned that they are an Armenian dynasty. Just as an example with Rurikids , them having Scandinavian roots doesn't mean they become a Scandinavian dynasty. Orontids are an Armenian dynasty, and the fact that it's excluded from the lede and instead replaced with "Hellenized branch of the Iranian Orontid dynasty" violates NPOV. I'll ask for a third opinion shortly. Feel free to ask for more third opinions. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 08:50, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Ah okay, it's more meant as 'of Iranian origin' rather than dynasty. I can see why that would be seen as the other way. Perhaps a rewriting is needed then? Still, imo the fact that the Orontids of Commagene were Hellenized and of Iranian stock should still be mentioned somehow per the vast majority of sources which put an emphasis on it. --HistoryofIran (talk) 09:26, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Happy to see that we have an agreement on the issue. As I said in my edit description and regarding to your concerns 1, the roots are already mentioned and explained in detail in the Orontids article itself. Still, I'll wait to hear from the 3rd opinion. Maybe it's also needed to be mentioned in this article, maybe it's not (I'm not well versed with MOS:LEAD). Kind regards, ZaniGiovanni (talk) 10:12, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

It seems like the third opinion isn't interested in the topic, I'll restore my edit per talk here. If you still want to include the origin of Orontids in the lede, maybe WP:THIRD would be a better way to ask. I still think that per MOS:LEAD, it shouldn't be included here in the lede, and it's explained in detail in the Orontids article's etymology section. Best regards, ZaniGiovanni (talk) 09:28, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, but that's up to you to ask that, not me. I've restored the edit per WP:CONSENSUS. --HistoryofIran (talk) 13:05, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

@HistoryofIran you have yet to tell me what exactly do you disagree in my edit? Please be specific. I explained my rationale to you here, and you seem to have at least partially agreed that "perhaps rewriting is needed". Right now, your twice restored version violates NPOV. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 09:02, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

I'm starting to think that you didn't even read my replies. You restored the NPOV version again [3] with added commentary. I asked what exactly did you disagree with in my edit, you repeated same arguments we discussed here. Having Iranian roots doesn't mean it's an "Iranian family" or "Iranian dynasty". I see that you had same discussion with another user, and they also informed you that regardless of their ethnicity, dynasties have allegiances to their geographical association-the Orontids, were not a dynasty that had allegiances to Ancient Greece or Persia, but to Armenia. They are stated as an Armenian dynasty with Iranian roots in multiple sources, that however, doesn't make them an "Iranian dynasty". To your other point, their roots are discussed thoroughly in the Orontids article, and it isn't a place for the lede, especially of a kingdom article. You probably know that I'm right here, but for some reason you extend this conversation for longer and longer. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 16:36, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

I'm just repeating myself at this rate; Sorry but how is your version the neutral one? You're removing information supported by about 10 citations. I hear you very well, but removing something so important and emphasised upon is not an improvement (and certaintly not neutral). Instead of attempting to do the same again and again, why don't you propose another, actual neutral version? As in add that they ruled Armenia but still keep the details regarding their Greek and Iranian background? And please don't make assumptions of me. --HistoryofIran (talk) 17:27, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Dear @HistoryofIran please hear me out. I already explained multiple times that I'm not denying that Orontids had Persian origins, but the lede of a kingdom article isn't a place for such information. Your only argument right now is that "it's mentioned in multiple sources". Fine, that doesn't mean it should be included in the lede, especially of a kingdom article. It is already explained in the etymology section of Orontids where is the most appropriate place. I feel like with you having such experience, I shouldn't be the one explaining manual style of writing here. And right now, your restored edit doesn't even explain what you want it to explain. It wrongly states Orontids as an "Iranian dynasty" [3], and not "a dynasty with Iranian origins". Even by your logic, the current version is incorrect and NPOV. But as I already explained, origins/roots aren't suppose to be in the lede to begin with. They are already wikilinked and explained in the appropriate section of Orontids article itself. I think the ANI would agree with me too if I'll have to take this to there, please don't make this hard for both of us. Regards, ZaniGiovanni (talk) 09:13, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

• "a hereditary Armenian dynasty."
  

Is quite meaningless and incorrect in this regard, since the Kingdom of Commagene had Greek and Iranian cultural and dynastic roots.^[1][2] The only Armenian connection is made by Frank McLynn who is far and away out of his depth and I have no idea why he is used here! David Lang's comment asserts that Commagene was an "Armenian satellite kingdom", which does not mean it was Armenian. No more than a "Roman satellite kingdom" is Roman! Simply because someone has edit warred their "Armenian dynasty" into the Orontid dynasty does not change that they originated from the Parthian Arsacids.^[3]

• • "... Hellenized branch of the Iranian Orontid dynasty."
    

This is factually correct and reflects the cultural and dynastic background of this kingdom.

• • "In Commagene, which had emerged as an independent kingdom during the breakup of Alexander's empire, there were still reminiscences of the mix Persian and Aramaic past.[..]. The inhabitants of Commagene worshipped divinities with a Semitic past, but they did so in Greek..."^[4]
    

And now for the threat...

• "I think the ANI would agree with me too if I'll have to take this to there, please don't make this hard for both of us."
  

Let's go! I would love to see what Admins think of a "new user" so conversant in Wikipedia speech, editing, and arrives to continue a dispute proxied by a block user! --Kansas Bear (talk) 15:29, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Is quite meaningless and incorrect in this regard, since the Kingdom of Commagene had Greek and Iranian cultural and dynastic roots

@Kansas Bear Hi, please read my proposal again. I'm not talking about Kingdom of Commagene. In fact, my only change is in regard to Orontids, which I already clarified in my comments multiple times (and you can actually see in the diff itself [1]).

And now for the threat... Let's go! I would love to see what Admins think of a "new user" so conversant in Wikipedia speech, editing, and arrives to continue a dispute proxied by a block user!

I don't know what user you're talking about, and ANI wasn't a threat, but more like a solution to this prolonged discussion, as I can't come to an agreement with HistoryofIran. I would much rather prefer to resolve issues on talk. Regards, ZaniGiovanni (talk) 16:08, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

I'm here to talk, and I want to resolve our issues by talking. I'll bring an example similar to one here that I think @HistoryofIran would agree:

Safavid dynasty had Kurdish or Turkic roots to my knowledge, would it be right to call it a "Kurdish" or "Turkic" dynasty? I think not, and I presume that both of you would agree with me. They were still an Iranian dynasty, with their historical and geographical association to Iran. Regardless of their origins, this fact doesn't change. Right now, with the edit HistoryofIran restored, it is stated "Iranian Orontid dynasty". This is the text I disagree with, and I gave my reasons already multiple times. When it comes to their origin, I don't disagree that they had Iranian roots, but that's already explained in the Orontids article itself. If you can show why origins of a dynasty should also be included in the lede of a kingdom article, and show me the guideline, I absolutely will have no objections to that inclusion. So far, I saw the "many sources say so" argument. Just because sources say so, doesn't mean that it's ought to be included everywhere.

Dear experienced editors, please don't shrug off my concerns just because I'm a "new user" or that somehow I'm related to a proxy blocked user that @Kansas Bear suggests. With respect, please don't make assumptions about me. I assure you that I'm not familiar with the user you talk about. If you're still unsure, I guess you can request an SPI, but trust me nothing will come out of it. I really hope we arrive to an agreement, I think my concerns are legitimate. With best regards, ZaniGiovanni (talk) 17:17, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Stop pinging me.

• "Safavid dynasty had Kurdish or Turkic roots to my knowledge, would it be right to call it a "Kurdish" or "Turkic" dynasty?"

Actually, their ancestry was even more varied and the Safavids asserted Iranian nationalism.^[5][6] Therefore, your comparison is flawed.

• "I don't disagree that they had Iranian roots, but that's already explained in the Orontids article itself."

Actually the lead of Orontid dynasty suggests they were of Armenian heredity. It should state;

• • "a hereditary Iranian dynasty that ruled over Armenia..."

I do not have a problem with the above lead change to the Orontid dynasty article. But I am sure that will not happen. I wonder why?

Actually, the lead sentence of this article should be:

• • "an ancient Greco-Iranian kingdom ruled by a Hellenized branch of the Iranian Orontid dynasty that ruled over Armenia."^[7]

The reason why it states, "...an ancient Greco-Iranian kingdom ruled by a Hellenized branch of the Iranian Orontid dynasty", is because this information is related to and repeated throughout the article, with the only mention of "Armenian" being a satellite kingdom and a silly mention from a non-specialized writer McLynn.@User:HistoryofIran, your thoughts on my proposal? --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:20, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

I thought pinging notifies the editor, I won't ping if you want to. To your points:

1) Regarding Safavids: with HisotryofIran, we were talking about the origins and that whether it determines a dynasty to be Armenian or Iranian. I am of an opinion that origins doesn't determine that so long that the kingdom is historically or geographically assosiated with certain region, that should be the determining factor. By that logic, Rurikids also are Scandinavian not Russian dynasty.

2) They were an Armenian dynasty with Iranian roots, and as I said, their roots are already explained in the Orontid dynasty#Historical background section.

3) I see your argument of repetition throughout the article, that's a way better argument than saying "a lot of sources say so". I think I agree with you in that regard and origins should be mentioned because of the repetition. My proposal would be the following:

"was an ancient Greco-Iranian kingdom ruled by Orontids, a hereditary Armenian dynasty with Iranian origins"

I'd like to hear both of your thoughts. With best, ZaniGiovanni (talk) 18:57, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

On the contrary, Orontids are mentioned only 3 times on this article one of them being in the lead, so now that I think about it, I'm not sure if the 'repetitive throughout the article' argument applies here. Sources connecting Orontids/Commagene to Armenia (it isn't just one source):

1. "…to restore the Kingdom of Commagene (a small Hellenized Armenian kingdom in southern Anatolia near Antioch, which had a monarchy from 163 BC to AD 72 until annexed by Rome)…" McLynn, Frank (2009) "Marcus Aurelius: A Life"

2. "[The Commagene Kings] did not perceive themselves as simply Greek, Armenian, Persian or ‘Commagenian.’" Miszczak, Isabela (2018)"The Secrets of Mount Nemrut"

3. "new religion promoted by Antiochus was syncretic connecting the elements from Greek, Armenian and Persian cults…At the same time, both Persian and Armenian influences can be observed in their clothes and headgear while their faces displayed Greek traditions….While the Commagene rulers worked hard to demonstrated their glorious origins from Armenia, Greece and Persia, they ignored the rising power of Rome." Miszczak, Isabela (2018)"The Secrets of Mount Nemrut"

4. "In speaking of his ancestry "as "Persian and Greek", Antiochus I regards the Armenian Orontids and their Achaemenid relatives alike as of the same stock." Sullivan, Richard (2016) "The Dynasty of Commagene"

5. "Ancient Commagenian identity has therefore been characterised as showing a large degree of syncretism, in which various influences have to be taken into account." Blomer, Michael (2012) "Religious Life of Commagene in the Late Hellenistic and Early Roman Period"

6. "The Kingdom of Commagene was a Hellenistic political entity, heavily influenced by Armenian and ancient Persian culture and traditions." Mark, Joshua (2020) World History Encyclopedia

ZaniGiovanni (talk) 08:14, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Aren't those the exact same sources that another user posted some time ago up above where he tried to prove the exact same point as you? Please read the full section, Mark and Miszczack are not even WP:RS (and I believe KansasBear replied to you regarding McLynn). And no, I don't agree with your proposal, as the Hellenization of the family is still omitted. --HistoryofIran (talk) 13:14, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Dear HistoryofIran, yes those are from above mentioned sources. The last message I see is from the user explaining why their mentioned sources are reliable, and as they went unanswered, I assumed that you agreed with them. I don't know about Mark and Miszczack, but the rest seem reliable, quote:

"1. Ehsan Yarshater (The Cambridge History of Iran) Ehsan Yarshater was an Iranian historian and linguist who specialized in Iranology. He was the founder and director of The Center for Iranian Studies, and was the first Persian full-time professor at a U.S. university since World War II. **Please note that Yarashater is also one of the authors of Encyclopædia Iranica, a website you quoted from.

2. Duane W. Roller (A Historical and Topographical Guide to the Geography of Strabo) is an American archaeologist, author, and professor emeritus of Classics, Greek and Latin at the Ohio State University.

3. Michael Blomer (Religious Life of Commagene in the Late Hellenistic and Early Roman Period) is an archaeologist specialised in Asia Minor and the Roman Near East. His main research focus is on urbanism, sculpture, and religious iconography of this area. Beyond that he has worked extensively on trans-local cults in the Roman Empire and the cult of Iuppiter Dolichenus in particular. Michael also has a long record of experience in field archaeology. Most notable is his commitment to the excavation of the Iuppiter Dolichenus sanctuary near Doliche in South East Turkey. This is also reflected in large number of publications on various issues related to the sanctuary and the surrounding region. **Please note that you have allowed Blomer’s work to stand in the lede of this article, but when I point to something that disagrees with this narrative from the same author, you deem the source not quality

4. Richard D. Sullivan (The Dynasty of Commagene) was Professor of Classics and History at the University of Saskatchewan and Adjunct Professor of History at Simon Fraser University

5. David Marshall Lang, was a Professor of Caucasian Studies, School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London. He was one of the most productive British scholars who specialized in Georgian, Armenian and ancient Bulgarian history". ZaniGiovanni (talk) 12:04, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

I prefer my version:

• • "an ancient Greco-Iranian kingdom ruled by a Hellenized branch of the Iranian Orontid dynasty that had ruled over Armenia."

That is more representative of the article and its contents. The McLynn source is garbage written by a non-specialized author. Why ignore what the sources say to simply write Armenian in front of everything, like that will prove the Orontids were Armenians. LOL.

• • "A combination of different cultural traditions is certainly expressed in the monuments and inscriptions of one local dynasty which emerged in northern Syria in the second century, the royal house of Commagene. But if what we are interested in is a local "mixed" culture, Commagene is not a true exception, for everything that we can observe there is, firstly, a royal invention; and secondly, though the kings consciously draw on two traditions, they do so in relation to Greek and Persian elements...."^[8]

If Armenian culture had such an impact on Commagene why is it not presented in their architecture/sculpture, language, religion? Because the Orontids, who were Iranian, not Armenian, followed the Iranian religion^[9], in corporated Iranian loanwords into their language,^[9] and used Achaemenid architecture^[10][11]. So what exactly was Armenian about Commagene? --Kansas Bear (talk) 16:02, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Your question about the absence of distinctly Armenian markers in Commagene’s architecture, sculpture, language, and religion overlooks the significant Armenian dimension of its identity, rooted in the Orontid dynasty and supported by reliable sources.

The Orontids were an Armenian dynasty, possibly of Iranian or local origin—who ruled Armenia for centuries, intermingling with local Armenians (Hewsen, The Geography of Armenia, 2001; Yarshater, The Cambridge History of Iran, Vol. 3). Their Armenian character is clear from their role in establishing Armenian statehood and dynastic continuity with later Armenian rulers, despite adopting Achaemenid practices like Iranian loanwords and architectural styles. Labeling them solely Iranian ignores this, akin to calling the Macedonian/Armenian dynasty in Byzantium only Armenian without acknowledging their Roman/Byzantine identity.

Zoroastrianism, the primary religion of Armenians at the time, shaped Orontid personal names and culture, as seen in Commagene’s syncretic religion. This doesn’t make Armenians “Iranian,” just as Christian names of Jewish origin don’t make Russians “Jewish.” Armenian Zoroastrianism was distinct, reflecting local adaptations (Facella, La dinastia degli Orontidi, 2006). Moreover, Achaemenid architecture, while prominent, was influenced by Urartian traditions, and the Orontids incorporated local Armenian elements, evident in their rule over Sophene and Commagene.

Commagene’s Hellenistic and Achaemenid aesthetics, like those at Nemrud Dagh, likely projected legitimacy in a Greco-Iranian context, but dynastic ties to Armenia confirm an Armenian substratum (Hewsen, 2001). Greek inscriptions reflect elite practices, not the absence of Armenian influence, as Armenian rulers often adopted Hellenistic norms. Properly representing Commagene’s Armenian identity alongside its Iranian and Greek influences would address the current omission of its Armenian heritage.

Additionally, personal suggestions and unfounded arguments should be avoided, as they detract from objective analysis. Numerous academic sources recognize Armenian identity as an integral part of the region’s cultural landscape. This is evidenced by the Armenian origin of the Orontid dynasty, the acknowledgment of Armenian rulers in the royal heritage lists, and the distinctive Armenian-style tiara worn by King Antiochus—all of which underscore Armenia’s historical and cultural presence in Commagene.

185.167.217.46 (talk) 05:15, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

The current Commagene article, particularly its lede, has been the subject of extensive debate regarding the kingdom’s cultural and dynastic identity. While the article emphasizes Commagene as a "Greco-Iranian kingdom ruled by a Hellenized branch of the Iranian Orontid dynasty," several editors have raised concerns that this framing marginalizes or ignores the Armenian identity of the kingdom, as supported by authoritative sources. This proposal seeks to address these concerns by suggesting revisions to the lede and article structure to better reflect the syncretic nature of Commagene, including its Armenian connections, while maintaining neutrality and adhering to Wikipedia’s policies (WP:NPOV, WP:RS, WP:WEIGHT).

Achim Lichtenberger | 2021, M. Blömer - S. Riedel - M. J. Versluys - E. Winter (eds.), Common Dwelling Place of all the Gods. Commagene in its Local, Regional and Global Hellenistic Context (Oriens et Occidens 34; Stuttgart), 577-585 https://doi.org/10.25162/9783515129268

"It is questionable, however, whether the ‘global’ perspective is the clue to understanding Hellenistic Commagene, and it is striking that most papers (with the exception of Kruijer – Riedel and Vito Messina) hardly ever use the term global, instead they apply cultural designations as heuristic tools. Most papers use the terms Greek or Persian without inverted commas and as useful categories. What is needed is greater study of the cultural complexity of the region of Commagene, and this volume significantly contributes to this. Hellenistic Armenia is probably a crucial link in understanding the ‘Persian’ (now I start using inverted commas) cultural influences in Commagene, as Matthew Canepa, de Jong and Giusto Traina emphasize in their contributions, too. This means that when we look at the torus bases in Commagene, for example, we probably should not only consider Iran but Armenia, too – as Kruijer and Riedel do – where we also find such architectural decoration. But are these torus bases ‘globally Hellenistic’? No, they are Armenian, Iranian or maybe even locally Commagenian, and thinking in such containers does not distract us from understanding cultural complexity but rather helps us to give structure to the same. We need to look at the local and regional aspects, we need more in-depth studies of Commagene and its closest neighbors. Of course, at the same time we must consider dominant cultural trends, which often go hand in hand with political dominance, as the case with the Seleucids, the Arsacids or the Romans."

The passage specifically appears in Lichtenberger’s contribution to the volume, which critiques the use of "global" frameworks in analyzing Hellenistic Commagene and emphasizes the need for localized, regional studies while acknowledging broader cultural influences (e.g., Persian, Armenian, and Hellenistic).

The lede and article body heavily emphasize Greek and Iranian cultural and dynastic elements, supported by numerous sources. However, sources identifying Commagene as an Armenian kingdom or satellite, or the Orontids as an Armenian dynasty, are underrepresented or dismissed. This risks violating WP:NPOV by excluding a significant scholarly perspective. Selective Source Usage: While sources like Shayegan (2016) and Strootman (2020) support the Greco-Iranian characterization, authoritative sources like Robert H. Hewsen (2001), Ehsan Yarshater (1983), and Albert De Jong (2015) explicitly describe Commagene as an Armenian kingdom or ruled by an Armenian Orontid dynasty. These are often sidelined in favor of sources aligning with the Greco-Iranian narrative.

The claim that Commagene was ruled by a "Hellenized branch of the Orontids, a dynasty of Iranian origin that had ruled over the Satrapy of Armenia" is total nonsense. It completely ignores the Armenian roots of the Orontid dynasty. The correct version should be: “ruled by a Hellenized branch of the Armenian Orontid dynasty of Iranian origin,” which accurately acknowledges their Armenian heritage and Iranian origins. 185.167.217.46 (talk) 01:26, 4 May 2025 (UTC)