Sasanian Empire is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Article milestones Date Process Result February 20, 2006 Good article nominee Listed February 21, 2006 Peer review Reviewed March 20, 2006 Featured article candidate Promoted May 14, 2008 Featured article review Demoted Current status: Former featured article

This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Iran Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Iran, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles related to Iran on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project where you can contribute to the discussions and help with our open tasks.IranWikipedia:WikiProject IranTemplate:WikiProject IranIran Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Zoroastrianism (inactive) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Zoroastrianism, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.ZoroastrianismWikipedia:WikiProject ZoroastrianismTemplate:WikiProject ZoroastrianismZoroastrianism Central Asia High‑importance Sasanian Empire is part of WikiProject Central Asia, a project to improve all Central Asia-related articles. This includes but is not limited to Afghanistan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Mongolia, Tajikistan, Tibet, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Xinjiang and Central Asian portions of Iran, Pakistan and Russia, region-specific topics, and anything else related to Central Asia. If you would like to help improve this and other Central Asia-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome.Central AsiaWikipedia:WikiProject Central AsiaTemplate:WikiProject Central AsiaCentral Asia High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Afghanistan Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Afghanistan, a project to maintain and expand Afghanistan-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.AfghanistanWikipedia:WikiProject AfghanistanTemplate:WikiProject AfghanistanAfghanistan Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Tajikistan Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Tajikistan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Tajikistan-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TajikistanWikipedia:WikiProject TajikistanTemplate:WikiProject TajikistanTajikistan Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Iraq Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Iraq, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Iraq on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IraqWikipedia:WikiProject IraqTemplate:WikiProject IraqIraq Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Syria Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Syria, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Syria on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SyriaWikipedia:WikiProject SyriaTemplate:WikiProject SyriaSyria Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Former countries This article is within the scope of WikiProject Former countries, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of defunct states and territories (and their subdivisions). If you would like to participate, please join the project.Former countriesWikipedia:WikiProject Former countriesTemplate:WikiProject Former countriesformer country Pakistan Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pakistan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pakistan on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PakistanWikipedia:WikiProject PakistanTemplate:WikiProject PakistanPakistan Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Turkey Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Turkey, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Turkey and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TurkeyWikipedia:WikiProject TurkeyTemplate:WikiProject TurkeyTurkey Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Middle Ages High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle Ages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Middle Ages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Middle AgesWikipedia:WikiProject Middle AgesTemplate:WikiProject Middle AgesMiddle Ages High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Template:V0.5 Guild of Copy Editors This article was copy edited by SMasters, a member of the Guild of Copy Editors, on May 19, 2010.Guild of Copy EditorsWikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsTemplate:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsGuild of Copy Editors

Archives

20 August 2008

This page has archives. Topics inactive for 90 days are automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III if there are more than 5.

Hi, what evidence is there that Zoasterians considered writing demonic? Jarwulf (talk) 22:36, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

While making a small edit to this article, I saw a Wiki-generated note about the large size of the article and a reference to WP:LENGTH. I do not feel comfortable taking on this project so I wanted to post a note. --*momoricks* (talk) 02:33, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

True extent of the Great Sassanin empire: The map you guys posted isn't the real one. Here's the actual map of the empire. Fix it please or I will. http://www.fouman.com/Y/Picture_View-Map_Sassanid_Empire.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.255.46.224 (talk) 00:32, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is te more accurate one. http://www.fouman.com/Y/Picture_View-Map_Sassanid_Empire.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.255.46.224 (talk) 00:37, 20 April 2011 (UTC) The Map of the Sassanid empire shows it as having annexed Gujarat State in India which is incorrect. What is the source for that map? The source appears to be unsubsrantiated. But I do not know how to change the map on wilkipedia- so I am writing this. Bkrish68 (talk) 17:37, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

how did Sassanid Empire rule kuwait althought the city was Built in 1613...!! --Bayrak (talk) 04:43, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well Kuwait was still a land its like saying that the area of London was taken over.so please research first 79.65.109.98 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:20, 10 July 2009 (UTC).[reply]

I removed the following text, because: (1) The edit was placed at the wrong level of detail in this article, i.e. it did not rate a section. (2) The information belonged in a single sentence in /* Art, science and literature */ where it was already as "college of Gundishapur, which had been founded in the 4th century" (Note it was 489 CE which is 5th Century). (3) Gundishapur (Academy of Gundishapur) was included as a main article in the listing under /* Art, science and literature */. (4) No citation was provided for Gundishapur being "the first university in the world". Gunishapur Academy was after the Academy of Plato and after the Nestorian theological and scientific center in Edessa, which was moved to Gunishapur to create the Gunishapur Academy. Which of course ignores developments in China, for which see University#Early history.

/* University */ in time of shapur 1 he built a university of Gundeshapur.this is the firs university in world.Gundeshapur built in Khuzestan.

I guess that covers it. --Bejnar (talk) 19:04, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

hey guys,

i just wanted to say thanks for putting together this great article. very informative. i do have a question though regarding the green sassanid map. it shows the coastal indian state of gujarat as part of the persian empire in the early-mid 7th century; however, gujarat at that time was firmly a part of the Indian Emperor Harshavardhana's domain. could someone please clarify this for me if I am in error or correct the map if I am not? if you have any primary or scholarly sources regarding this they would be most appreciated. thank you for your help.

Best Regards,

Devanampriya (talk) 06:30, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The map is biased crap and makes one question the neutrality and historical accuracy of the entire article. It should be replaced. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 15:44, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This map is incorrect. It shows Transoxiana as a part of Sassanid Empire. Sassanid rule never extended to the north of Amu-Darya river. Under the map it also says that this is the map of Sassanid empire under Khosrou II. Khosrou second never ruled Central Asia. During the times of Khosrou Soghdiana was ruled by Ashina Turks and their Soghdian subjects. The article is great, but the map is wrong. This is not a map of Sassanid empire. It is a map that shows nationalist claims of Pan-Iranists. Those are the same people who classify Armenians, Georgians and many other nationalities as Persian simply because at some point their lands were a part of the Persian empire. QoziKalon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by QoziKalon (talk • contribs) 00:21, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, I think the map is not accurate because india was not part of the Sassanid Empire in any form. It extended into modern day Sindh and the 3rd tributary river which is pretty close to the current border that Pakistan has with india. Was this map fabricated to include india for some particular reason??

So why is the map still there?Bkrish68 (talk) 17:43, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the Sassanid Empire. As there is only one Sassanid Empire, it is not necessary to disambiguate the name by adding "Persian" in front of it, as a editor did on 23 May 2009. It is known as the Sassanid Empire. --Bejnar (talk) 16:51, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Although I agree with your revert, the problem is that most readers would be unaware that the Sassanid Empire is a Persian Empire. "Persia" is, for better or for worse, very commonly used as a shorthand for the Sassanid Empire just as for the Achaemenid one before, and most users will be more familiar with that term, especially in the context of relations with Rome/Byzantium. Perhaps a sentence to that effect could be added somewhere in the lead? Constantine ✍ 16:33, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is even necessary to put "persian" to the first sentence. In fact a google scholar search shows that "sassanid persian empire" is common. (note this one too). Also as mentioned by you, in terms of Iran Roman relations, the term persian is most of the time mentioned because of "parthian empire". Also if one looks at one of the series "the cambridge history of .." series one sees the usage of "persian sassanid" or better "sassanid persian" is common (note that we have to add up "persian sassanid", "persian sassanids", "persian sassanian", "persian sassanians",...). I think the article should mention that.--Xashaiar (talk) 19:17, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• The lead sentence used to read:

The Sassanid Empire or Sassanian Dynasty (Template:Lang-fa [sɒsɒnijɒn]) is the name used for the third Iranian dynasty and the second -begin ref- "Ardashir succeeded in creating a "Second Persian empire" which was recognized for over four centuries as one of the two great powers in Western Asia and Europe." "Sasanian Dynasty" Encyclopedia Iranica-end ref- Persian empire.

which I thought was quite okay. However, other editors felt that "last pre-Islamic Iranian empire." was less controversial. --Bejnar (talk) 23:26, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

and why is this comment is a justification for revert? Your reason "As there is only one Sassanid Empire, it is not necessary to disambiguate the name by adding "Persian" in front of it," does not apply as sassanid were part of Persian empire and they saw themselves as heir to previous Persian empire. As said before the term "Sassanid Persian empire" is common in scholarly works and this is all matters. I already gave links to some of books usung the term. Moreover you did not respond to thes points (made by myself and the previous commentator User:Cplakidas on the importance of adjective Persian in almost all works of scholars of Iranian-Roman relations) and gave only an edit summary "I don't think so". The article of EIr mentions explicitly Sassanid as part of Persian empire lineage. This article of EIr and "last pre-Islamic Iranian empire" counts "median, achaemenian, Parthian, and Sassanid" whereas "second Persian" counts "achaemenian and sassanid".--Xashaiar (talk) 23:32, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IF a name has been used historically, then it is relavant in my opinin. Since relevancy is the main criterion for lead. For example the name of many cities. In this case sassanian in Perso-Arabic has about 1200 years of history and are part of the national consciousness of Iranians. Modern Persian itself being a continuation of middle Persian, with the vocabulary being 80% identical, it is continuation of the language of Sassanids. The word itself is Persian and is not diffeent in either Persian or middle Persian. For example see many Greek related articles. I agree the alphabet of ancient Greek is similar to modern Greek, but the main point is that ancient Greek is the direct ancestor of modern Greek. Middle Persian of Sassanids is also the direct father of modern Persian. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 02:15, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is the article good enough to have a good article nomination? Warrior4321 20:48, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not yet.Xashaiar (talk)

I've done some copy-editing to this article, for instance, changing "the last Zoroastrian empire" to "the last pre-Islamic empire" and miscellaneous grammar fixes. However, I'm not sure what the first paragraph is meant to say. The wording as it appeared:

Information is shaky concerning the relationship between Sassan and Ardashir. Sources are not consistent as far as the relationships between the early Sassanids (Sassan, Babak, Ardashir and Shapur) are concerned.

What's unclear? Presumably Sassan is the namesake of the Sassanid Empire, but there's no explanation of what the ambiguity is - or what the significance of the other names is. Although the next paragraph goes on to tell the story of Babak, the way this is written is confusing. Recognizance (talk) 22:39, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

50 ^ Cite Error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named iranologie; see Help:Cite errors.

• May someone fix this reference (number 50). --Mahmudmasri (talk) 20:50, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted a self made map. The reason: SHapur I mentions:

I am the ruler of Ērān-šahr and hold these šahrs: Persia,

Parthia, Xuzistān, Mēšān, Assyria, Adiabene, Arabia, Āzerbaījan, Armenia, Geogris, Segan, Albania, Balaskan, up to the Caucasus mountains and the Gates of Albania, and all of the mountain chain of Pareshwar, Media, Gurgan, Merv, Herāt and all of Abaršahr, Kermān, Sīstan, Tūrān, Makrān, Paradene, India, Kušānšahr up to Peshawar and up to Kašgar, Sogdiana and to the mountains of Taškent, and on the other side of the

sea, Oman.

which indicates 1. The map used wrong geographical names. 2. The map did not show the greatest extend of the empire. According to the references above these territories were in Eranshahr at the time of Shapur I and again "continued to the time of Xosraw II in the seventh century CE." Xashaiar (talk)

As I can see from the section above, I am clearly not the only one in having problems with the map present in the infobox, since it has multiple issues. First and foremost, it depicts a supposed "maximum extent" under Khosrau II. No problem with that, except that: territory north of the Caucasus was never ever occupied by the Sassanids, Asia Minor is shown half-controlled by the Persians and half-contested (the Persians did indeed raid it, but never actually occupied and administered any large parts west and north of the Cilicia-Euphrates line for any period of time), and finally, much of Central Asia up to the Aral Sea is shown as under full control, when in fact that control was certainly more nominal than factual in the more outlying regions. No single map (except this one and various obvious derivatives) in any book on the Sassanid Empire shows a similar extent, and even Iranian sites (e.g. [4]). Second, it uses modern borders to delineate Persian influence in Arabia, an obvious fallacy. Third, and indicative of its veracity, its creator apparently had no more than a general knowledge of the relevant history, since he titled it "610 CE". In 610 CE, not even Syria, Palestine and Egypt had yet fallen to the Persians. Frankly, I am amazed that this map has been allowed to stand for so long unchanged. If we want an accurate map of "maximum extent", I'd suggest using these maps which come from actual atlases researched by scholars. Constantine ✍ 09:58, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PS, Xashaiar, using a ruler's (typically hyperbolic) statement of power, dating 300 years before the date we want to depict, is not the correct way to determine whether a map is correct. The Kings of Spain for instance still claim to be "Dukes of Athens", perhaps we should add Central Greece to the map of Spain? Shapur at some point claimed to be king of the world. By that criterion, let's paint the globe green and be done with it. Constantine ✍ 09:58, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NO: What a site (In Iran or Aniran) say does not give any reason to replace a "problematic map" with "a more problematic" map. You should also avoid the usual mistakes: geographical Names in ancient time had different meaning than present time. For example: Balkan in the above quote is much different than what you think. Also "africa" problem: Here is a scholarly work] "Altheim-Stiehl“ that indicates "in the early seventh century Husraw II’s forces conquered Egypt and ruled the region for several years, where they even went further west and south, making inroads into Lybia and Nubia." so what more do you need? The current map is not good enough, but the map you included is even more problematic. (I am using the scholarly work here and the references I gave). I wrote the section above to say "why" and not "based on Shapur I", otherwise the map shows exactly what the references above indicate. The point is that at least the current map claims to be "based on a written well preserved book form Sassnid time". The maps on the (Iranian)website you posted are not RS. But I agree that we must solve the problem of map once and for all. Xashaiar (talk)

Xashaiar, please do not make the mistake of taking me for an ignoramus. I know the history of the period quite well, and yes, the Persians conquered Egypt (I even rewrote the relevant article), but in 618-619, not in 610. Read the well-referenced Roman-Persian Wars article or any book on the period and you'll see that I am right. I also know the locations of almost all the names in Shapur's list, and can also spot a nice reference "up to the Caucasus mountains and the Gates of Albania" there, which confirms that Persian authority did not extend north of the Caucasus. The Balkans I never mentioned, you did. And the extent of control in Arabia, with the modern borders, is just silly. The maps I linked to come from researched atlases, and are hosted in the site of a respected university. They are very accurate from what I can tell. According to you however, they are not reliable or accurate. What are their problems, then? I am also quite amazed that you dismiss these clearly sourced maps (to clarify: I don't mean the Iranian one here, but the others) and at the same time advocate using a 3rd-century inscription to verify a 7th-century map... The map I used to replace the current one may not depict "maximum extent", but it is a good approximation of the core of the Sassanian Empire. As another editor said above, the present map is so ridiculous that it makes one question the entire article. To resolve the problem, I suggest we put a request at the Graphic Lab for a map, using the maps I linked to (as the only ones with sufficient detail and from a scholarly source). Constantine ✍ 10:41, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not misunderstand me. I did not dispute the date of conquering Egypt. What do you mean by "the extent of control in Arabia, with the modern borders, is just silly." Do you dispute the Sassanid control over "Arabia"? The maximum extent of the Eranshahr is "better" depicted in the current map than your map. This map is the best choice we have for 1. Geographical names are not used, whereas "your" maps use wrong ones. We need a map with correct geographical names. 2. The map is a better approximation of Xusro II's empire, at least based on the "book" cited above. 3. The maps on the (ecai)website are copyrighted. 3. please be very specific and tell us "what is your exact problem". Is it Albania or Arabia or Africa or ...? Africa and Arabia are also in the maps in the (ecai)website your posted. D you want this map? I am amazed that you did not point to real problem of the map: Eranshahr had more territories eastward than what the map shows. Xashaiar (talk) 11:23, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, using the modern colonial-era borders of Oman and Yemen to depict the extent of control of the Sassanids in pre-Islamic Arabia is patently wrong. The maps I linked are more accurate, since they limit the area and show it fading into the hinterland, which was the case. The Sassanids had garrisons on the coasts, but they did not control the country inland in the way a modern state does. For the rest, I explained myself pretty clearly above. As for your fixation with names, the current map uses no names at all. In addition, the maps I linked use the proper names for the period depicted, so I really don't understand this objection of yours. So far, you have not explained what exactly is wrong with any of these maps, just provide generalities. Please point out in detail what you object to in each of them. As for copyrights, I never said import them wholesale. I said, let's go to the Map lab, and they'll make us a map based on them. This map is actually the most detailed map of Sassanian Persia ever produced, but it is a bit too complicated for an infobox. I'd suggest combining it with this one, since you want "maximum extent". Constantine ✍ 11:43, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By non RS I meant your reference to "even Iranian websites" which was a mistake when arguing. My objection to those come from the fact that "Africa" should be included. (check out this form Sasanian studies or the other references I gave) Give me some time, I will see if sites like the one you gave include "maps with discussions and references". But for the moment I agree with your proposal to combine those maps. Xashaiar (talk) 11:53, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, OK, it appears we were arguing about different things. It was apparently a mistake for me to include the Iranian map, but I only did so by way of comparison. See what you can find and we'll work on it further. Regards, Constantine ✍ 12:13, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The number of populatıon is put as 78 million while even in China at the same period the number of entire population wasn't as high as 40 million. The map isn't correct. Besides Ghaznevids were of Turkic origin. The founder of Gaznevids, Sabuktegin was a slave of obscure origin but the only thing which is true about him is that he was Turkic, so his son Mahmut just invented the story of his Sassanid ancestors. Whoever put this informations can go f..k himself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.99.68.55 (talk) 09:05, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please behave in a more civil manner. If you have sources for any of the information you have mentioned, then change it yourself and add the reference along with it. warrior4321 23:04, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have several issue with Warriors answer, which reflects recurring problems with the attitude that many WP editors have: 1. While the OP is impolite, the answer is too far-going. Seeing that most of the OP is perfectly factual in its style and approach, I would have left it at "Please remain polite and forgiving" (or similar). 2. It is not the responsibility of the OP to provide references that statements in the article are wrong. On the contrary, it is the responsibility of the original authors to provide proof that they are correct. 3. A "do it yourself" answer is not constructive: There is no guarantee that any individual has the time, WP-knowledge, etc. to do changes; there may well be valid reasons to refrain from changes, even when the time (etc.) is there, e.g. a wish to establish consensus first; even by pointing out problems with an article, the OP has already helped (provided that his information is correct, obviously), and to demand that he should help further is uncool (for want of a better word)---gift horse, mouth. Read up on "be kind to newbies" and "assume good faith", before critizing others for their behaviours.88.77.145.65 (talk) 19:39, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would have left it at "Please remain polite and forgiving" (or similar).

Why should anyone be asking for forgiveness from this user? He is not the owner who manages these articles. Rather, he comes in, says his fact is right, and everyone else is wrong. warrior4321 22:13, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is not the responsibility of the OP to provide references that statements in the article are wrong. On the contrary, it is the responsibility of the original authors to provide proof that they are correct.

Wrong, wrong, wrong. It is just as much his responsibility as it is mine, yours or anyone else's. Nobody is paid to add sources or edit Wikipedia. The original authors are not anymore responsible to add sources than the IP user is. warrior4321 22:13, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A "do it yourself" answer is not constructive: There is no guarantee that any individual has the time

Is there a guarantee that other editors have the time?

a wish to establish consensus first

There is no need to establish changing information if there is a reliable source backing it up, unless another editor disagrees with the statement. warrior4321 22:13, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

the OP has already helped (provided that his information is correct, obviously), and to demand that he should help further is uncool (for want of a better word)---gift horse, mouth.

Other editors such as myself do not work for him. I am not required to do anything. If he wants something done, he has to do it himself. Do you understand? He should ask for help, but he should be doing it himself. warrior4321 22:13, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Read up on "be kind to newbies" and "assume good faith", before critizing others for their behaviours.

I am quite familiar with the Wikipedian policies and guidelines. Have you even read them? Where was good faith not assumed? Where was I unkind to the new editor? He was using profane language and I responded by asking him to behave in a civil manner, and if he would like to fix to article, he may but he needs a reliable source to back him up. There was nothing wrong with what I said, please don't make a big fuss about nothing. warrior4321 22:13, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The spelling Sassan with two "s" is old fashioned, wrong, and generally not accepted. The name should be spelled with one s. The same is true for the name of the dynasty, which also is done with an -ian suffix: Sasanian. This is the standard scholarly form today (as is seen in all new books and articles published). Please correct this as it is annoying... --Khodadad (talk) 10:32, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which "new books and articles published" spell it as such? warrior4321 16:14, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, I don't know, let's see: T. Daryaee. Sasanian Iran: the Portrait of a Late Antique Empire, Costa Mesa: Mazda, 2009; idem. Sasanian Persia, London: I.B. Tauris, 2009. P. Pourshariati. Decline and Fall of the Sasanian Empire, London: I.B. Tauris, 2008. Also, check out the www.sasanika.com site and this list of books at Google Books: http://books.google.ca/books?q=sasanian&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&hl=en&tab=wp... convinced? Also, I am a PhD student of Sasanian history and deal with the subject on a daily basis and see tens of articles about them, almost always spelled "Sasanian". --Khodadad (talk) 09:52, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well I can just as easily show you a list of books published in the 2000s with Sassanian spelled as such. List of books here.

• I'm fine with both (Sassanid and Sasanian). Anyway, both variants should be mentioned in the lead. Alefbe (talk) 17:08, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good to see that this article lost its star -- hasn't deserved it in a long time. It's basically been a tabloid for Iranian-exile romanticists for quite a long time. Best indication of that is the absurd map that is offered to show the extent of the Sassanid empire but which in fact only shows terrain occupied during an ongoing war with the Byzantines, all of which (and more) was lost by the conclusion of that war. Another good indication is the extent to which it relies, in its revisionism, on the work of Farrokh in the section on the army, as Farrokh writes as an advocate for his subjects rather than a scholar of them. It follows that this tone is evident in the article as well.

Would suggest that the article might be worthy of a star once again if it takes on less of the role of self-stroking by its predominantly Iranian-exile contributors and more of a role of actual scholarship into the ancient empire, which is interesting enough on its own and does not require inflation. Larry Dunn (talk) 16:45, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See below for the map. I agree whole-heartedly about the Iranian-exile romanticist thrust of the article. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 15:07, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is unfortunate that in the chapter on Persian infantry,only once a primary source is quoted, and its translation is confusing. What Ammianus really says is that the Persian infantry are armed like murmilliones - equipped with dagger and shield - and obey orders like servants. The rest of Ammianus' description shows that, according to him, they are wretched, badly armed, untrained servants, an unpaid forced civilian levy. Now I am not saying that there might not be something to be said against this topos of Ammianus (and of other Romans before him, commenting in a remarkably similar way on the Parthian infantry, and of Belisarius commenting on late-Sasanian infantry), but the chapter simply ignores the implications of its only reference to a primary source, painting instead an entirely unrelated picture of an Hellenistic army of tactically specialised "national" units, each differnetly equipped and trained and supporting the other units on the battlefield. Source?87.212.52.128 (talk) 20:14, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The same with the cavalry chapter: do Mitterauer and Chapple really claim that clibanarii are Sasanian cavalry supported by light cavalry, archers and infantry, and cataphracti Sasanian cavalry supported by elephants? Highly original, but where did they get it from? So two terms used in the Roman army neatly applied to two different types of cavalry in the Persian army? How very convenient. Or did the Roman cataphracti use elephants too? As far as I know, there does not exist one single source that gives any sort of description beyond both clibanarii and cataphracti being some kind of armoured horsemen. Attributing to these two terms specific tactical specialisations is extremely dubious as far as the Roman army is concerned and utter nonsense as far as the Persian army is concerned. Again, source? 87.212.52.128 (talk) 22:14, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The assumption that the knowledge of ancient siege machinery had somehow disapeared from the Middle East, only to be relearned from the Romans, I believe to be a eurocentric bias. I suspect its cause is Marsdens book on ancient Greek and Roman artillery, in which an Asian origin of ancient artillery is rejected with such a deplorable argument I will not repeat it, as it mars this in other respects excelent work. This has led military historians to believe that artillery was introduced to Asia by the Macedonians, and to automatically assume that as soon as the last Hellene soldier left Iran, artillery left with him. True, our sources do not mention succesful Parthian siege activity, and Ammianus occasionally makes the Persians seem incapable of devising siege machinery, but the Parthians had conquered a vast empire where artillery had been known before Alexander, and making barbarians seem like idiots is a popular Hellenistic topos. Not knowing if there was artillery is not the same as knowing there was no artillery.87.212.52.128 (talk) 22:30, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the second map under the Second Golden era section tittle "The Sassanid and Byzantine empires in 600 CE, before the Arab conquest" - really nice looking map, but one that isn't in German would be good! ArdClose (talk) 00:12, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They say that maps are the favourite toys of nationalists and this seems to hold particularly true for the image above. This map is as indicative for the true and typical size of the Sassanid Empire as a map on the eve of Stalingrad is for Germany's true and typical size. Since the map merely shows the greatest extent of the front line (the Sassanid were still at war with the Byzantines and no Sassanid territorial gains were formally recognized in some peace settlement), I propose to replace the map with one which shows the long-standing Mesopotamian border between the two powers. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 15:05, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This has been brought up time and again, but to no avail. After some debating with Xashaiar (talk · contribs), I had made a request at the Map Workshop for a new one using some of the best maps available ([5]), but nothing came of it. If you intend to make a new map, I'll be happy to help. Constantine ✍ 15:38, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I too have questions (though regarding the eastern boundaries) about the map--both this and the german-origin map indicating vassals which extend the line well into the deserts of rajasthan and gujarat. Is this for the twilight of empire before the caliphate invaded Persia? If it's the early to mid 600s, Harsha Vardhana (the then emperor of North India) was firmly in control of gujarat and the other territories that are highlighted. Could the specific articles from the Iran Chamber Society be posted? Can other Sassanid experts validate this? From what I understand, the best practice that wikipedia has been encouraging is to delineate firm borders under strong political control of the empire rather than temporary conquests. That tributaries being highlighted in a separate color also appears to be the appropriate modus operandi. Perhaps the main map at the top can follow this while another map indicating the furthest expansion (validated by sources) could be placed at the bottom. Though, I suppose to be fair, the Roman Empire Map should probably follow the same practice regarding Trajan's conquest of mesopotamia vis-a-vis the parthians: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_empire. I hope all sides can reach an agreement that is true to history and yet acceptable.

Devanampriya (talk) 04:42, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This article has too many pictures in the culture section ie the numerous vases on the right side of the page. This is why there is a large blank space at the end of 'Industry and Trade'. I think it's in our best interests to cut down on the number of pictures here, but I'd like to verify which ones should be kept. Deagle_AP (talk) 04:44, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The citation of the article is very poor. The article cites 'Zarinkoob p XX', 'Fyre 2005', 'Author pXXX' etc. on most occasion. While I understand Zarinkoob or Richard Nelson Fyre are respected scholars, however there should be a mention of his published article or book name, with author and page. Just giving reference to 'Zarinkob pXX' / 'Fyre pXX' is not sufficient enough. Those references (Zarinkoob pXX) or (Fyre XXXX) needs to be properly cited or those statements has to be removed. --Theotherguy1 (talk) 13:14, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The new map of the empire in 620 makes very little sense. The area cut out between Oman and Yemen in the edited version are illogical. The original map of the empire in 620 wast best. It came up first on the web(google images "Sassanid Empire") and I do believe wikipidia encourages the most mainstream or common source to be used. However, since some people seem to use original research to justify the new map, I will justify why the old one was best for them:

First of all the area left between Oman and Yemen out was known as Mahra and it was under Sassanid control for a very good reason. It's simply that the Sassanids had to cross uncontrolled territory to get from Oman to Yemen and vice versa which makes the new map ridiculous. Do not tell me that they went by boat because although the Sassanids may have had a navy of sorts their land army was used the most because almost all of their enemies used land armies and not navies. It also does not make sense that they did not travel in a straight line(the land route) and got on to ships and boats to get to their destination instead. Further justification includes the fact that ships and boats of the time were not very advanced and land routes were preferred for almost all journies in such situations.

As for Sassanid control in Northwest India being chopped off the map, I want justification because the White Huns had ruled the area and they were subdued by Sassanids which means that the Sassanids gained their territories atleast for the time that the Sassanid empire was at its zenith.

The edit in Anatolia also seems ridiculously botched. The old map had the western half of it lightly shaded to show raiding and temporary occupation but the eastern half was under firmer Sassanid control which makes sense since it was right next to it. This new map just has a narrow strip from today's Kurdistan in Turkey that extends to the gates of Constantinople. The Sassanids conquered or occupied key cities in Anatolia which gave them control of surrounding lands which means that Sassanid conquests were a little mor complicated than just a narrow strip of land.

The article clearly states that the Persians gained control of Byzantine Egypt. This means all of Byzantine Egypt not some of it like the new map version indicates.

I mean no offense. It's just that many of the changes on the map have very little justification and seem to have been made to please those with an agenda. Please communicate with me on the map because it seems to have been implemented without much debate and on the will of a certain few.

If no communication is made, I will consider it my rightful duty to change it back to the original 620 AD map. (Kaveh94 (talk) 04:04, 26 April 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Hello Kaveh94,

I had nothing to do with the map change, but as you can see above, I did raise questions about the Northwest India point. In response to your remarks, that still would not justify showing northwestern india as part of the sassanian empire for the simple reason that the White Huns were first defeated by the Gupta Empire under Skanda Gupta in the 400s, after which they went back into Iran and killed Peroz I. And when they attacked India again, the Huns were ultimately defeated by an Indian coalition led by the Lesser Gupta emperors and driven off the plains of North India around 528 CE. This occurred well before 620 CE(the Vardhanas took over from the Guptas then) and the eventual Sassanian victory over the huns under Khosrau I. Again, had nothing to do with map editing, but just wanted to clear that up.

Best regards,

Devanampriya (talk) 00:06, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Devanampriya,

http://www.cemml.colostate.edu/cultural/09476/afgh02-09enl.html The site I provide seems a bit vague on Sassanid Rule after the reign of Khosrow but it mentions the Kushano-Sassanids, indo-sassanids etc that resurfaced after the White Huns were defeated and the maps hint at the resurfacing of Sassanid Rule in Sindh after the White Huns. Many major sites are rather vague on the time period between 531-620. As for the Vardhanas or king Harsha, does the article mention when Sindh was conquered by Harsha? Last I checked, Harsha's empire was still expanding in the 640's so even the time for Harsha's conquest is vague. Harsha also came from Thanesar, a place distant from Sindh and the parts of Northwest India the Sassanids controlled so it would have taken him some time to get to Sindh with all the various kingdoms in his vay. As for Sindh itself, Sassanid authority in coastal Sindh may have declined by the 7th century so coastal Sindh is up to debate. However, Sassanid authority in the rest of todays Pakistan and Afghanistan is unquestioned since they expelled the Heftalites from those areas and took over with the help of Western Turks in 531.

Anyways the new map is still considered original research so I will have to revert it back soon if some of these fellows who changed the map don't show up with justification.

I thank you for you response. We maybe be able to think of something for coastal Sindh later but the new map is far from justified at this point.

With utmost respect, (Kaveh94)

Hello Kaveh94,

Thank you for your detailed response, but I'm afraid your arguments do not align with the determined historical record. First and foremost, the western turks did not expel the huns from the punjab region of modern pakistan--it was the very Hindu confederacy I mentioned above. The hun king Mihirakula was banished and effectively locked up in Kashmir after his defeat, pardon, and exile. Thanesar is a little north of modern Delhi and very close to what is now pakistani punjab. Harsha's rule there would certainly note have been hindered by geography, nor would sindh. Afghanistan may be another story, but it is not Pakistan (which has traditionally been a part of India proper). Additionally, sindh is not gujarat. The identifiable peninsular region jutting out (and also the easternmost territory in the old, erroneous sassanid map here) is the state of gujarat. It absolutely was a part of Harsha's empire. A point of order is that the last known attempt at expansion by Harsh was circa 620 CE and he was defeated by the Chalukya emperor of Southern India, after which they fixed their mutual border at the Narmada river. Gujarat was very much a part of his empire by then and after. Sindh is more difficult to ascertain, especially given the number of Sassanian nobles who sought refuge there after the Arab conquest of Persia--but that again does not remotely prove that Sindh was a tributary state let alone a formal territory of the Sassanian empire. The gentleman below has already addressed the maps you cite, so I will leave it at that. Thanks again for the response. Hope this clarifies the issue with the map vis-a-vis northwestern India.

(addition: the present map actually still erroneously shows Sindh as part of the sassanid empire during 620 CE. While there may be a case during the early Sassanid period, there doesn't appear to be one post-huns as independent hindu/buddhist dynasties ruled there. I should also note that it is important to distinguish between territory and tribute state.)

Regards,

Devanampriya (talk) 22:29, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

May I see your sources for all of this? (Kaveh94 (talk) 23:32, 3 May 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Hello! I uploaded the new map, so let me answer: First, the old map was simply ridiculous, depicting a situation that never existed at any one time. The general consensus, as can be seen from the previous discussions, is that it was a "fantasy map". The "shaded area" in Anatolia was nonsensical, as can be seen by the fact that the original map author justified it as "client kingdoms", which did not exist. The borders everywhere else were rather inflated, most clearly seen in the borders in Arabia, which followed modern lines. On the Central Asian and Indian borders, the old map represented "maximum lines" of rather dubious value. The new map is based on two actual maps published in more or less reliable atlases, linked in previous discussions on this issue ([6]), and I've tried to follow them as best as I could. Now, on Egypt, it is clearly painted as belonging to Persia. I am not aware of any Persian presence in Cyrenaica (which is not part of Egypt proper). If I am wrong, please point me to a RS and I will correct it immediately. On the strip that connects Syria to Constantinople, I am not very satisfied of it either. Modern scholars are more or less unanimous in that actual, more or less permanent Persian occupation did not occur beyond the Taurus-Antitaurus line, and this stripe of land represents the actual routes that Shahrbaraz and Shahin regularly followed, and where temporary Persian garrisons were probably established (for instance, Caesarea lies within this stripe of land). From reading Kaegi, the northern and southern portions of Asia Minor were left relatively untouched by the Persians, which is also why Heraclius was able to land troops there unopposed. As for the argument "First of all the area left between Oman and Yemen out was known as Mahra and it was under Sassanid control for a very good reason. It's simply that the Sassanids had to cross uncontrolled territory to get from Oman to Yemen and vice versa which makes the new map ridiculous. Do not tell me that they went by boat", it is both sloppy original research, as the Persian army under Vahriz that took Yemen actually did arrive by sea and landed at Aden, and nonsensical, as the area is extremely arid (I've actually been there) and no one in their right mind would ever move a force of several thousand heavy cavalry through it overland. I am always open to any corrections, but please back them up with sources. Constantine ✍ 06:50, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why thank you for responding. All I wanted is an explanation and sources. Here is the link for the map I found depicting Mahra and the rest of Oman and Yemen under Sassanid control. It is before the conquests of Khosrow II but I doubt Khosrow suddenly lost these portions of Arabia. http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://library.kiwix.org:4201/I/300px_Persia_600ad.jpg&imgrefurl=http://library.kiwix.org:4201/A/Sassanid_empire.html&usg=__dp4Zj8XRi2FRz4a-vDCQ3fs06-Q=&h=170&w=300&sz=28&hl=en&start=138&zoom=1&tbnid=l07jFyoo-MWntM:&tbnh=83&tbnw=146&ei=DFG_TaeVO4mR4gb_8sG_BA&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dsassanid%2Bempire%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DG%26gbv%3D2%26biw%3D1920%26bih%3D918%26site%3Dsearch%26tbm%3Disch0%2C1141&itbs=1&iact=hc&vpx=1039&vpy=578&dur=2264&hovh=136&hovw=240&tx=146&ty=56&page=3&ndsp=73&ved=1t:429,r:6,s:138&biw=1920&bih=918 As for Cyrenica, the case is closed for now but further investigation will be conducted for Anatolia, Central Asia, and the disputed portions of North India, and modern Pakistan. (Kaveh94 (talk) 02:30, 3 May 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Wait I found this from the previous discussions which mentions Lybia as being conquered. It appears to be reliable and has numerous sources. (Kaveh94 (talk) 02:47, 3 May 2011 (UTC))[reply]

this map is not a reliable source by a long shot. I happen to have interacted repeatedly the guy who made this and other such maps. While generally good, they are not reliable for details. Too much guesswork, no published sources. And you will notice that even here these areas are depicted as vassals, not under direct Sassanid control. On the second source, it cites al-Tabari, who is a primary source, and hence must be treated with caution. The same tale is given by some Byzantine chroniclers too, probably relying on the same original source. However modern scholars largely dismiss this. See Douglas L. Johnon's Jabal al-Ak̲h̲ḍar, Cyrenaica, Speck's Das geteilte Dossier. Likewise, the Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium mentions nothing about a Persian conquest in its article on the Cyrenaica. Constantine ✍ 07:17, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You can't dismiss that map so easily. The author employs(http://www.worldhistorymaps.info/TAL_Sources_pg2.html#ad600 a plethora of which do happen to be published) for the maps. Also, in many Eastern Empires, especially feudal ones, vassalage was commonly adopted as a method for governing distant provinces. You can call them vassals in the map and highlight them a different shade or call the map "Sassanid Empire" and its vassals if you wish. As for Anatolia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Map_of_Persian_Military.png The Sassanids also made gains towards Ephesus from Southern Anatolya as well.

 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaveh94 (talk • contribs) 00:17, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply] 

(Kaveh94 (talk) 00:21, 4 May 2011 (UTC))[reply]

You do realize that Wikipedia cannot use itself as a source, do you? Yes, the Persians raided as far as Ephesus, but this is about it. The Arabs raided almost every year all over Anatolia in the 7th to 10th century, but no map depicts Anatolia as being part of the Caliphate. Understand please the difference between permanent or even temporary control (lasting a few years) to a raid that lasted a few weeks or months at best. On Thomas Lessman's maps, I'll repeat what I wrote above: good on general issues, and on countries where there's a lot of documentation, but not very reliable on the rest. How do you draw borders for a tribal kingdom in Africa which left no written sources or boundary markers? The same goes for the Arab desert. If you check his source list really carefully, you'll see a) that on the sources he lists for Arabia he states that "The information shown in these maps conflicts" b) that his sources on the Sassanid Empire come from online sources like Euratlas or even Wikipedia maps (!) or programs, and that none really constitutes a reliable, secondary or even tertiary scholarly source on Arabia. In other words, he guesses. Now, on the vassalage issue, you are right, but is there a source that says that the Arabs of the Hadramawt were Persian vassals? I have a hunch that this is simply another piece of guesswork along the lines of your previous argument that "it makes sense" that the territory between Oman and Yemen would also be under Persian control. The maps I linked above and used as the main sources are from actual historical atlases, and they are linked by a university like Berkeley, so I consider them far more reliable. Heck, there are maps in other university sites like this one that prefer to show even less territory, focusing only on lands held for a longer time by the Sassanids. Constantine ✍ 07:01, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm...ok the case rests for now then. If you wish to be so rigid then perhaps we should edit the Roman, Chinese, Indian, Caliphate, and British maps as well as the Mongol maps. They too have issues like this, and yet, no one touches them. If you want to work on those as well, I can help out.

WP:OTHERSTUFF and WP:SOFIXIT always applies. FYI, and just so that any claim of specific anti-Persian bias is quashed, I've fixed excessive Roman and Caliphate maps too. However, neither the Roman, Chinese, Caliphate etc maps were so out of touch with what atlases displayed as the Persian one. At any rate, if you find sources, feel free to contact me or upload a new version yourself. Constantine ✍ 07:12, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

	An image used in this article, File:Rahmini Silver Vessels-Quri Qale.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Deletion requests June 2011 What should I do?
	A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs. This notification is provided by a Bot, currently under trial --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 20:30, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An image used in this article, File:ArdashirII .jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status What should I do? Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 06:07, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I began reading this article, but was immediately confused when I read the dates for various events. All dates are written as 251, or 655, or whatever, BUT WITH NO INDICATION OF B.C. OR A.D. (or even B.C.E), so the reader has no clue whether the writer means before or after Christ. Unbelievable to me that someone would do such a thing.

Songwryter (talk) 22:16, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the Sassanid Empire existed during the 3rd to 7th centuries AD so there's no BC dates. Maybe AD could be put into the header, though.--Tataryn77 (talk) 21:29, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am adding one map in article that made by miself based on sources. Alefbe undid my edit for two time [7] [8] . I think the map don't have any problem. --Ebrahimi-amir (talk) 05:03, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't use wrong pictures with wrong information: [Academic Books] Maikolaser (talk) 21:55, 14 March 2012 (CET)

I think next time when 217.24.133.219/109.165.161.93 is making vandalism, we should report him on vandalism-page due to persian nationalism and vandalism. He is a typical revert warrior. Maikolaser (talk) 03:17, 15. March 2012 (CET) —Preceding undated comment added 02:17, 15 March 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Hallo, I recognized that the data which was given to this picture is based on wrong information:

• 1.:The term "Sassanian style" was used in the wrong context.

What have been described is the wrong picture. The right one is Fig.1 on page 8 in this document: http://www.sino-platonic.org/complete/spp084_mummies_central_asia.pdf

The "Tocharian" Colour Plate on page 9 is not fiting to the description of Fig.1. So, the description is wrong. We need a correction of the information given in this document. I've informed the User Per_Honor_et_Gloria about this problem.

- Maikolaser (talk) 11:32, 15 March 2012 (CET)

Discussion at talk page on commons and at Talk:Tarim mummies--92.229.35.175 (talk) 17:22, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[9], Scholars illuminates Silla-Persian royal wedding. As an ethnic Korean, well, 50% actually I think I'm throughly convinced that Koreans are just another cultural Persians. This is an interesting news. Komitsuki (talk) 14:49, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why is the Sassanid map like that? the greatest extent of the Sassanid Empire was much bigger, but lasted only for a very short time, i even learned that in school. --HistoryofIran (talk) 15:04, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Have a look at the discussions on this issue above. Regardless of what you learned at school, your map is just wrong, for instance Anatolia was never under solid Persian control, the extent of borders in Central Asia and Ciscaucasia is simply unrealistic. The old map (which I restored) isn't perfect, but it is far better than the overblown Sassanid Empire maps that Iranian users try to push through every now and then. Constantine ✍ 16:40, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, whole Anatolia except Constantinople was under Persian control in the last Persian-Byzantine war, but not for a very short time, and the map i putted was only based on the other Sassanid maps. --HistoryofIran (talk) 17:03, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Anatolia, no it was not. Read some reliable sources in the matter, the relevant article on the war lists quite a few: the littoral was never controlled, and even in the interior Persian presence was limited to short-term military occupation during invasions, such as the capture of Caesarea or the advance up to Constantinople for the 626 siege. Unlike Armenia, Mesopotamia, Syria and Egypt, the Persians never "settled in" as if Anatolia was a conquered & pacified province. Constantine ✍ 19:53, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable sources? can you show me? --HistoryofIran (talk) 08:31, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, go read Byzantine-Sassanid War of 602-628 for one, you will see which areas of Anatolia were actually invaded and fought over. The high-water mark of Persian presence in Anatolia was in the early 620s, but this lasted for a couple of years at most and did not cover all of the peninsula either. For books, have a look in the sources listed in the article, although Walter Kaegi's biography of Heraclius is probably the most useful and comprehensive work on the subject.Constantine ✍ 09:40, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, i can remove some part of Anatolia in my map to make it look like the Anatolia you said, but what about Central Asia? is that wrong too? --HistoryofIran (talk) 10:16, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Look, I won't take you step by step through this. Look at the several discussions above this one on exactly the same issue, look at the links provided for scholarly-researched maps of the empire, read some books on the subject, and then go about creating a map. Making a map by what you think the Sassanids controlled, and without any reference to sources, is about the worst way to do it. Constantine ✍ 12:41, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Think? no no mate, this map is based on many other maps showing the Sassanid Empire map, let me show you a example of ONE of them:

--HistoryofIran (talk) 13:12, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, well, what exactly makes you think that this map is in any way accurate? Wikimedia Commons is rife with inaccurate maps of all kinds, precisely because anyone with even a vague idea of a subject can make one and upload it there. That doesn't make them accurate or reliable per WP:RS. By reproducing such maps without checking their accuracy first you are merely compounding the original map-maker's error. A piece of advice: if you see a user-made map that does not cite to specific, high-quality sources, mistrust it. Constantine ✍ 14:54, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To save you time, have a look here. Constantine ✍ 14:59, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a source that shows they controlled whole Asia minor: http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/sasanian-dynasty It says this: Iranian troops swept through Mesopotamia, Syria, Palestine (Jerusalem was captured in 614, and the “True Cross” was transferred to Ctesiphon [Flussin]), Cilicia, Armenia Minor, Cappadocia, and the rest of Asia Minor. By 616, they were camping at Chalcedon, opposite Constantinople. --HistoryofIran (talk) 09:20, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Come on, be serious. This is a sweeping, generalizing statement, summarizing the first ten years of the war, not a detailed account of territorial possessions. Either way, "swept through...the rest of Asia Minor" means that the Persians campaigned there, which is true, not that they established a civil administration of any sort. One can equally well state that "the Arabs swept through all of Asia Minor in the period 710-740", but that does not mean any degree of permanent or even semi-permanent control. The Persians campaigned in Asia Minor, true, and twice they reached as far as Chalcedon, but what is required for making a case for "conquest" or "control" is something else entirely: evidence of permanent (i.e. not just for one campaign) occupation and administration of cities and provinces over several years. This evidence exists in plenty for Syria and Egypt, but not for Asia Minor. The reason why should be more than obvious... I repeat, stop looking at the internet for source snippets to suit your POV, and open some books that deal with the issue in detail. Constantine ✍ 09:58, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Found a new source, what about this then: http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/byzantine-iranian-relations, it says this: Šahrvarāz and Šāhēn captured Mesopotamia, Armenia, Syria, and Cappadocia, amassing enormous booty. In 610 Heraclius (d. 641) overthrew Phocas and sought peace once again, but Ḵosrow refused. His armies continued their march in two directions: Šahr­varāz took Antioch, Apamea, Caesarea, Mazaca, Da­mascus, Jerusalem (whence he sent the “true cross” to Persia), and, in 616, Egypt. Šāhēn conquered the whole of Asia Minor, entered Chalcedon after a short siege, and encamped within a mile of Constantinople itself

And this from here http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/army-i: the Persians who in the early seventh century conquered Egypt and Asia Minor lost decisive battles a generation later when nimble, lightly armed Arabs accustomed to skirmishes and desert warfare attacked them. --HistoryofIran (talk) 14:35, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We've discussed the second quote already, and the first brings nothing new. Syria, Palestine, Mesopotamia, Armenia and Egypt are known and undisputed, while Cappadocia is not the whole of Asia Minor, but merely one of its eastern regions, a fact which is also well attested with the operations ca. 610 around Caesarea. This is a long way from "all of Asia Minor", though. Again, if you want to do serious work on this (and me to take you seriously), let me repeat my previous advice: stop looking around for easy answers on the internet and open up a few books that deal extensively with the subject.Constantine ✍

What do you mean? it says clearly that they conquered Asia minor: Šāhēn conquered the whole of Asia Minor, entered Chalcedon after a short siege, and encamped within a mile of Constantinople itself, the Persians who in the early seventh century conquered Egypt and Asia Minor lost decisive battles a generation later when nimble, lightly armed Arabs accustomed to skirmishes and desert warfare attacked them. --HistoryofIran (talk) 12:45, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello everyone! I am a new user to Wikipedia, but have done some incredible research on Iran's history, mostly about the Safavid/Afsharid Empire. I would like to jump in and give you guys my opinion on the matter. :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keeby101 (talk • contribs) 16:10, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

After reading through this book,[10] I do not believe the information, regarding the Ghaznavid's "Sasanian" ancestry on page 112, is verifiable. A Sasanian family tree listing Yazdegerd III followed by a "?" then a Firuz i Barsinjan(who is subsequently followed by Kara Naman, Kara Millat, Kara Arslan, Huk and finally Sabak Tegin), is hardly evidence. The relating information about the Ghaznavids, found on pages 114-115, make no mention of Firuz-i-Barsinjan, Kara Naman, Kara Millat, Kara Arslan nor Huk. The Ghaznavid genealogical tree on page 116 also makes no mention of the individuals in question. Therefore, I am removing this reference as it does not have the required information to source this statement, "The Ghaznavids (977-1187), with a Persian ancestor: Yazdegerd III". --Kansas Bear (talk) 00:10, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen that people have been going back and forth on this whole thing. With that being said, I have just the thing to solve it all! :)

I have made a more accurate map of the Sassanid Empire and recently put it as the principal image of the article. I hope it stays that way given that it is more accurate than the previous one, :) Keeby101 (talk) 16:46, 14 July 2013 (UTC)(talk) 16:44, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[Keeby101] (talk)[reply]

Dear Lord, here we go again. Seriously, simply labelling something as "more accurate" does not make it so. I wish you would take the trouble to at least read the repeated discussions on this above. In short no, your map is not more accurate, it is simply another example of the Iranian nationalists' typical "über-Sassanid Empire" that the whole map dispute is about.--Constantine ✍ 20:03, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So in short, from the conversations that I have read above, you are also calling HistoryofIran an Iranian nationalist given that you were arguing about whether the Sassanids had conquered all of anatolia or just eastern anatolia. Funny HistoryofIran agreed that the Sassanids DID indeed conquer all of Anatolia in which my map shows that whereas HistoryofIran's map doesn't; presumably because you argued with him about it to the point to where he finally made a map that you were satisfied with, but in truth Idk. HOWEVER, all of the articles and books that I have read about the Sassanid Empire and the Roman Persian Wars CLEARLY show that my map is more accurate than HistoryofIran's map. I wish I could site my sources on this but I do not know how, I have enough trouble using this talk page as is due to it being extremely difficult to use any talk page at all as demonstrated when I made my first post on my user talk page. Bottom line, my map is more accurate, but I do not wish to argure about it for eternity. Also, for the record, I am an American in which I found what you labeled me to be very insulting as I am a very sensitive person. ALSO, I AM SORRY FOR ANYTHING THAT MIGHT HAVE OFFENDED YOU OR ANYONE ELSE! :) Keeby101 (talk) 01:29, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Problem with these maps is that they include places where the Sasanians only had ephemeral control. This is the same reason why the Byzantine maps don't include regions they gained after the 7th century war. An accurate map shouldn't include Dara and Dura-Europos in Mesopotamia. Armenia was contested for most of the time so it can be included. Conquest of Yemen is very sketchy, we don't have a clear view of how Yemen was related to the rest of the empire, it probably never formed a stable administrative region. This is perhaps the most accurate map imo.--Kathovo talk 15:35, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good find, although the border in northern Mesopotamia (with Hatra, Dura and Nisibis in Roman hands) reflects 3rd and 4th-century realities, not the longer-held post-Peace of Acilisene borders. Perhaps it is time to bring this issue once again to the map workshop, hoping that this time someone will take it up. I would suggest having two areas, one "core" territory (essentially what Kathoo's map shows in solid green) and one "influence/temporary control" area for the rest, including the eastern Byzantine provinces captured in 605-620. Constantine ✍ 15:50, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hold on Constantine and Kathovo, before you take this to the work shop. I made a brand new map and I want to know your thoughts about it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sassanian_Empire_ca._620_A.D.png

This map depicts territories under firm control shown in Dark Red and territories under ephermal control shown in Light Red. Keeby101 (talk) 03:46, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As with the map you propose for the HRE, you use such dark colors that they strain the eyes and are difficult to read. They are not improvements on the maps already on the pages. And you ignore every request for supporting citations. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 04:02, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Citations? OH, you mean sources. Yea I know, I keep forgetting to do that and I am sorry, but I did leave citations with the HRE. I put 3 sources to back it up. Also, if my map of the Sassanid Empire is too dark of color to where it strains peoples eyes then what color should I use? I was thinking of using light brown if this is the case. Keeby101 (talk) 04:45, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind, I got a much better map coming up! One that will not strain anyone's eyes lol! Keeby101 (talk) 04:46, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Aside from the garish blood-red which renders the map unsuitable by itself, the labelling on it is also incorrect. Babylon is not west of Lake Tharthar, "Selucia" is not on the Euphrates, and Arabistan is not south of Adiabene, to point out a few of the errors. I agree with Kathovo and Constantine's proposals on the map. Irānshahr (talk) 08:40, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said before, I got a much better map coming up, and it everything will be correctly labeled on this map. :) Keeby101 (talk) 16:03, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alright everyone! I told you all that I had a much better map coming up! So here it is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Persian_Sassanian_Empire_ca._620_A.D.png

Note: Debating whether to stick with this map or not, I might make a map that will look somewhat like this:

http://cominganarchy.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2008/01/persia-map1.jpg

In the mean time, give me your thoughts everyone! :D Keeby101 (talk) 03:26, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations on producing a map of the Achaemenid Empire with some Sasanian-era names interspersed. That still is not the Sasanian Empire, certainly not as far as Asia Minor is concerned, as has been debated to death already. There are a number of links to seriously researched academic atlases in this talk page, which for the purposes of map-making constitute reliable, verifiable sources. I suggest you base your maps on them. And I have to agree with the previous objections to using this red colour.Constantine ✍ 07:01, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Uh NO! I produced a map of the Sassanian Empire and if you want sources for my map, I will give them to you right now!

Source 1: http://www.allempires.com/article/index.php?q=sassanids_byzantines

Source 2: http://www.livius.org/sao-sd/sassanids/sassanids.htm

Source 3: http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/byzantine-iranian-relations

Also, there a few words I would like to quote from sources 1 and 2.

Here is quote of them from Source 1: "In 616 the Persians captured Alexandria and by 619 all of Egypt (to the border of Ethiopia) was once again under Persian rule. In the meanwhile, another Persian army overran Asia Minor in 617 and captured Chalcedon. The Persians held the city for ten years, and were only separated from Constantinople by the Bosporus."

From Source 2: "Khusrau's armies went on to invade Egypt -Alexandria was captured in 619- and in 626, their advance-guards paused only a mile from Constantinople. The Persians even raided Cyprus and occupied Rhodes. It seemed as if the Achaemenid empire was restored, and Khusrau ordered the making of brilliant rock reliefs at Taq-e Bostan."

With that said, you are wrong and I am right! My map is more accurate especially since mine has Cyprus under Sassanid control and to further prove this, take a look at all 3 sources. In fact, I might give you more sources to further back up my claims!

Finally, I have produced a map of the Achaemenid Empire, if you want to see it here it is right now:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Achaemenid_Empire_under_Darius.png Keeby101 (talk) 00:01, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You note the complaints about the color, yet you persist with this garish red background. Why do you use such a loud color? The object is to instruct, not to blare. The green used on the existing map is much easier to read and doesn't strain the eyes. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 01:01, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about? I got rid of the dark red color and replaced it with the bright red color so it won't stain peoples eyes! Yet you are telling me that the bright red color does the same thing? Keeby101 (talk) 01:08, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am talking about your Sasanian map above, here. The red with black text is garish and difficult to read. Why use red to begin with? It looks like a neon sign. The green is softer and much easier to read. Do you see any other bright red maps on this page or elsewhere? (See for instance the numerous maps on the HRE page, all with lighter colors that contrast easily with black text.) Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 01:26, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I fixed it! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sasanian_Empire_cca._620_A.D.png

The red color is gone, hopefully this color is better for everyone. :) Keeby101 (talk) 05:04, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keeby, please, please go and read the discussions above (I know you've been pointed to those in muy talk page) about Asia Minor and Arabia, and then please open a number of books, real books, not webpages, about Sasanian, Byzantine, Central Asian, Caucasian etc. history, and read what it says there. Then you can begin creating maps on this subject. Because, for the n-th time, the Persians never controlled all of Asia Minor, even at the phase of their maximum expansion against the Byzantines ca. 620. And they also did not control Transoxiana, Khwarazm let alone Kashgar in the 6th-7th centuries either: this was territory of the Hephthalites until 557, and then came under the loose control of the Göktürks but remained de facto independent city-states until the campaigns of Qutayba ibn Muslim. There is also no evidence I've yet seen that the Persians controlled all of Hadramawt or the southern parts of Oman, Lazica was a Persian vassal and briefly occupied but never part of the Persian Empire proper, Cyprus was never occupied, etc. And these are just the glaring errors of your map that I caught on at first glance. Sorry, but it is truly far closer to depicting the empire of Xerxes than that of Chosroes II. Finally, the orange is scarcely an improvement on the red. Constantine ✍ 16:18, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If that is the case, I am surprised, actually shocked that you haven't replaced the map HistoryofIran put as the principle image of the article given that it shows Persia having full control over all of the territories that you listed except for Cyprus and Southern Oman and Yemen. Despite that, I have read plenty of real books on the history of Iran and they all say exactly what I pointed out to you above. HistoryofIran pointed this out to you on the discussions above, especially when it came to the Persians controlling Asia Minor. Finally, I have read plenty of Byzantine, Central Asian and Caucasian History! Heck, Byzantine History was the first that I read about especially back when I was still in school. Again I say, my map is far closer to depicting the Empire of Khosrau II in 620 A.D. NOT the empire of Xerxes or Darius, THIS IS:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Achaemenid_Empire_under_Darius.png

So with that being said, obviously there is no way anyone can win this topic as you seem to be aiming for a map like this:

http://iranpoliticsclub.net/maps/images/078%20Sassanid%20Empire%20570%20AD%20Map.jpg

If you don't believe that I have repeatedly read the discussions above, then visit my talk page and then you will know for certain. And when visiting my talk page, answer my questionnaire #3 while you are at it. :D Keeby101 (talk) 16:49, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't replaced HistoryofIran's map because I am fed up with edit-warring over this. If you have read plenty of books, then please consult them and reference them instead of pointing to websites. HistoryofIran likewise relied on quotes from websites, but on Asia Minor at least I gave him a quite clear rebuttal, and he no longer disputes this. I have given you some very specific points where your map is obviously wrong and why, but you don't seem to take notice. I am not "aiming" for anything other than a map which is realistic, and yours unfortunately is not. Constantine ✍ 16:58, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, come to my talk page and go to the topic "The Sassanid Empire! New and Improved!" and you will see that I have multiple sources to back up my map being realistic. When I mean sources, I mean not only websites, but actual books as well and I quoted from all of my sources. So with that being said, come to my talk page and see for yourself and feel free to comment on it if you like. Keeby101 (talk) 21:13, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alright everyone! I am back after a few days of giving this topic on the talk page a rest and I am here to finish this dispute once and for all!! Kathovo and I had a talk on my talk page and we have decided that we would reach a consensus with the other users on a map. If we cannot reach a consensus that we might have no choice but to use WP:DR. Also, I do NOT mean to sound rude when I say this, but allow me to point out to you all where you are wrong and where I am right. From all of the books I have read, when it comes to both the Achaemenid and Sasanian Empires at their greatest territorial extent, they both looked extremely similar IF not the same as each other! The only differences between the 2 in territory is that the Achaemenid Empire had control of Greece and the area around the black sea whereas the Sasanian Empire had control over the Persian Gulf area, Oman and Yemen. That's about it! Nothing more, nothing less! Those are the ONLY differences between the 2 of them! Period!

Here is my map: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Neo-Persian_Empire_ca._620_A.D.png and here are my sources to back it up:

Website Source 1: http://www.allempires.com/article/index.php?q=sassanids_byzantines

Website Source 2: http://www.livius.org/sao-sd/sassanids/sassanids.htm

Website Source 3: http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/byzantine-iranian-relations

Website Source 4: http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/khosrow-ii

Website Source 5: http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/army-i — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keeby101 (talk • contribs) 17:39, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Book Source 1 ^[1]: https://play.google.com/books/reader?id=-Z8NAAAAQAAJ&printsec=frontcover&output=reader&authuser=0&hl=en&pg=GBS.PA592

Book Source 2 ^[2] https://play.google.com/books/reader?id=dAdPAQAAIAAJ&printsec=frontcover&output=reader&authuser=0&hl=en&pg=GBS.PA168

Book Source 3 ^[3]

Book Source 4 ^[4] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keeby101 (talk • contribs) 13:11, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Book Source 5 ^[5]

Book Source 6 ^[6]

Book Source 7 ^[7]

Book Source 8 ^[8]

Book Source 9 ^[9]

Book Source 10 ^[10]

Book Source 11 ^[11]

Finally, there are a few words from Website Sources 1 and Book Sources 1 2 & 3 that I would like to quote:

From Website Source 1: "In 616 the Persians captured Alexandria and by 619 all of Egypt (to the border of Ethiopia) was once again under Persian rule. In the meanwhile, another Persian army overran Asia Minor in 617 and captured Chalcedon. The Persians held the city for ten years, and were only separated from Constantinople by the Bosporus."

From Website Source 2: "Khusrau's armies went on to invade Egypt -Alexandria was captured in 619- and in 626, their advance-guards paused only a mile from Constantinople. The Persians even raided Cyprus and occupied Rhodes. It seemed as if the Achaemenid empire was restored, and Khusrau ordered the making of brilliant rock reliefs at Taq-e Bostan."

From Book Source 1 "During twenty years out of the twenty-five, his career was one of uniform and most extraordinary success : he carried the Persian arms to Syria, to Cappadocia, to Egypt, to Chalcedon on the Bosporus ; captured Daras, Amida, Edessa, Hierapolis, Antioch, Apameia, Damascus, Jerusalem, Alexandria ; overran all Asia Minor ; threatened Constantinople itself."^[12]

From Book Source 2: "Thus the whole of the Roman possessions in Asia and Eastern Africa were lost in the space of fifteen years.‘ The empire of Persia was extended from the Tigris and Euphrates to the Egean and the Nile, attaining once more almost the same dimensions that it had reached under the first and had kept until the third Darius. ^[13]

• Rawlinson, George (1880). "A MANUAL OF ANCIENT HISTORY".

• Rawlinson George (1885). "The Seven Great Monarchies of the Ancient Eastern World".

• Rawlinson George (1882). "The Seventh Great Oriental Monarchy".

• Touraj Daryaee (2008). "Sasanian Iran, 224- 651 CE: Portrait of a Late Antique Emprire".

• Vesta Sarkhosh Curtis, Sarah Stewart, University of London. School of Oriental and African Studies, British Museum (2008). "The Sasanian Era".

• John Curtis, Vladimir Grigorʹevich Lukonin, British Museum (2000). "Mesopotamia and Iran in the Parthian and Sasanian periods: rejection and revival c. 238 BC-AD 642".

• A. D. Lee (2009). "War in Late Antiquity".

• Greatrex/Lieu (2007). "The Roman Eastern Frontier and the Persian Wars Ad 363-628".

• Beate Dignas, Engelbert Winter (2007). "Rome and Persia in Late Antiquity".

• Glen Warren Bowersock (2012). "Empires in Collision in Late Antiquity".

Also, I will admit that the first link is a little bit controversial, but it is most certainly not dubious or by any means unreliable either. I will post more book sources to further prove that my map is more accurate if I have to. In the mean time, here is a variant of the map that I made: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Sassanid_Empire_conquests_7th_century_A.D.png this map shows the core territory of the Sasanian Empire and it's territorial conquests in the early 7th century.Still, I would prefer this map: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Neo-Persian_Empire_ca._620_A.D.png as the infobox image of the article because it shows the empire at it's greatest territorial extent despite most of it's territorial gains being ephemeral control. Keeby101 (talk) 03:00, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to add one more thing. IF I SOUNDED RUDE AT ALL THEN I WOULD LIKE TO SAY THAT I AM EXTREMELY SORRY! I do not have that good of online etiquette to be honest. Peace ☮. Keeby101 (talk) 03:05, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have posted in your talk pages several recent academic references that depict the Sasanian empire with the border it had retained for hundreds of years. I have also argued why I believe that maps depicting stable borders that stood for centuries are more adequate for the infobox.--Kathovo talk 13:36, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keeby, I have written above precisely why your peak 7th-century borders are wrong, and if you have truly read the sources you mention, you would know why, which is why I doubt you have. In the west, any inclusion of Asia Minor east of the Taurus, Cyprus, as anyone who has studied the narrative of the war of 602-628 will know, and as I explained to HistoryofIran in my talk page. "Raiding", "overruning", "campaining in" a place as part of a military expedition is not the same as actually controlling it, still less making it part of a specific state. In the 8th century, the Arabs "raided" and yearly "overrun" Asia Minor far more extensively and over a far longer period of time than the Sasanians did, and were just as far from ever controlling it or making it part of their empire. Plus, when you make so sloppy a work as to add Chios and Lesbos as well, you cannot expect to be taken seriously as regards your commitment to accuracy. In the east, I repeat what I wrote above: Kashgar, Tashkent etc were not under Persian control in Late Antiquity, the Persian border ended on the Oxus, which was the dividing line established with the Turks after the defeat of the Hephthalites ([11], [12], [13]). In the north, Lazica and Iberia, as well as Armenia quite often, were semi-independent vassals of Persia, not integral parts of the Empire, and for Lazica there is IIRC no evidence of a Persian occupation in the early 7th century. Constantine ✍ 16:40, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Map fixed: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Neo-Persian_Empire_ca._620_A.D.png Core territory of the Sasanian Empire is shown in Brown and areas under ephemeral control or overrum by Sasanian forces are shown in Orange. In the Second Perso-Turkic war, the Sasanian Army did cross the oxus river and overran the Gokturks in 619, but that all came to an end with the start of the Third Perso-Turkic War and the original boundaries with the peace treaty of 628 A.D. Keeby101 (talk) 02:44, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Update! I modified the article a little bit. I put this map http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Neo-Persian_Empire_ca._620_A.D.png as the infobox image of the article and I put this map https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:The_Sasanian_Persian_Empire_from_602-620_A.D.png in the "Second Golden Era." section ofthe article. I also put this map http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:The_Sasanian_Empire_on_the_eve_of_the_Final_Roman-Persian_War.png on the Byzantine-Sassanid War of 602-628 article. Reason being is because I believe that it is best to show the Sasanian Empire and all of the territory it raided, occupied and overran shown in the same color. At lest for the infobox image that is. I typed this for the image caption so no one will complain about it, "The Sasanian Empire at it's greatest extent from 619-622 A.D. under Emperor Khosrau II." The territory shown on my map is accurate, but it was only maintained for 3 years until the Byzantaines and the Gokturks defeated the Sasanian Empire and ended the war with the peace treaty of 628 A.D. Keeby101 (talk) 07:48, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, let me repeat for the n-to-the-nth time: the Persians did not, repeat, not conquer all of Anatolia, and in the 7th century did not, repeat did not, control Transoxiana. I've said and analyzed why, and if you choose to ignore that, then that's your problem. Accordingly, both this map and this map show a situation that never existed at any given point, not in 619-622, not ever. When the Persians held most of Central Asia in the East in the 3rd-4th century, they had their "usual" borders in the West, and when they gained their maximum extent against Byzantium (which again, did not include Anatolia, Cyprus etc), they did not control Transoxiana. This is really the last time I repeat this, I am sick and tired of talking to a wall and being called upon to review "corrected" versions that are not "corrected" even one iota. Until I see something more or less accurate, I will remove and/or revert to this, which is about the most realistic of the lot in that it depicts a situation that actually existed (although here again, there is poor research: just prior to the war, the Byzantines still controlled a slice of Armenia between Lake Van and Iberia given to them in 591, as shown here). Constantine ✍ 14:26, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You can't be serious!? I am getting sick and tired of talking to a wall of solid steel that refuses to even aknowledge 1/3 of the sources I posted on this talk page already! That's it Constantine! I'VE HAD ENOUGH!!!! You CLEARLY did not read anything that I said here: "Map fixed: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Neo-Persian_Empire_ca._620_A.D.png Core territory of the Sasanian Empire is shown in Brown and areas under ephemeral control or overrum by Sasanian forces are shown in Orange. In the Second Perso-Turkic war, the Sasanian Army did cross the oxus river and overran the Gokturks in 619, but that all came to an end with the start of the Third Perso-Turkic War and the original boundaries with the peace treaty of 628 A.D." Even Kathovo would agree and he in fact, did like and agree on using that map. When I made an older version of that map that included the Byzantine Empire in it he complemented it and said on my talk page. "Good job, but I still don't think we should put the map of territorial changes in a war in the infobox". So why can't you just accept this map: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Neo-Persian_Empire_ca._620_A.D.png ?

And you clearly won't accept the fact that YES! The Persian DID in fact cross the Oxus River and conquered Sogdiana in the Second Perso-Turkic War and overran Cyprus and Anatolia and maintained hold of those territories for 3 years!! It is even stated in all of the books that I have cited to which some of those books were written and published by proffessors from the University of Oxford!

For the last and final time I will repeat myself saying that Both the borders of the Achaemenid and Sasanian Empire at their greatest extent were extremely similar if not the SAME with the only differences at all being that the Achaemenids controlled Greece and Black sea territory and the Sasanians controlled Oman, Yemen and Persian Gulf territory!

These were the boundaries of the Gokturk Khaganate prior to the war in 619 A.D.: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Gokturkut.png Both of my maps of Persia clearly shows the territory the Sasanian Empire temporarly occupied for 3 years. I would like to point out one more thing btw. You told me at the beginning of this topic that my map was just another example of Iranian nationalism. Um...HELLO! what you are doing is just another example of Greek Nationalist's typical rewriting history to glorify themselves! The Byzantines and the Gokturks lost the first half of the war so heavily to the point where both empire were about to be absorbed into what became a mirror image of the Achaemenid Empire if you were to put it on a map which my map depicts! The Sassanians and the Avars suffered even more heavy losses and humiliating defeats in the second half of the war to the point where the Sassanian Capital was looted, burned and held by the Byzantines for a few days! And again I say, IF I SOUNDED RUDE OR INSULTING AT ALL THEN I WOULD LIKE TO SAY THAT I AM EXTREMELY SORRY! The only reason why I went that far in this paragraph is because throughout this argument you have not only sounded rudely(My Opinion), but you have also insulted me as well. The first insult was when you responded to my first map proposal and basically called me an Iranian nationialist and there other insults that I could go on about, but I won't.

Either way, since we cannot reach a consensus on this topic and the edit warring will continue as a result! I filed a Dispute Resolution request to end this once and for all! The administrators are going to be the ones who will decide which map will be the infobox image of the article. with that being said! This dispute is permanently OVER! Keeby101 (talk) 00:08, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not an expert on the Sassanid empire, but in general, relying on 19th century sources and dubious websites is a strong indication of cherry-picking sources to support an existing opinion, not of a careful reading of the best sources to summarise current academic understanding. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:21, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes! I did use 19th century book sources, but with all do respect you conveniently left out the 21st century book sources that I used and cited: Keeby101 (talk) 19:04, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Book Source 3 ^[1]

Book Source 4 ^[2] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keeby101 (talk • contribs) 13:11, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Book Source 5 ^[3]

Book Source 6 ^[4]

Book Source 7 ^[5]

Book Source 8 ^[6]

Book Source 9 ^[7]

Book Source 10 ^[8]

Book Source 11 ^[9]

IGNORE THE 19TH CENTURY SOURCES AS THEY ARE OUTDATED, but do pay attention to all of the other sources which includes the one from 1950. As you can see, most of my sources are from 2000 - present day. :D Anyway,, here is a map that actually is better and more accurate and is more physical than any of the previous maps that have been used: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:The_Sasanian_Persian_Empire_ca._620_A.D.jpg

NOW! Before anyone says anything about it being a map of the Achaemenid Empire, here is an map of the Achaemenid Empire(AKA, the empire that achieved God status in the B.C. era) for you all to look at: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:The_Achaemenid_Empire_ca_400_B.C.jpg

Notice the differences between the two empires at their maximum territorial extents as those are the ONLY differences between them! No more no less! Now, as for this map http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:The_Sasanian_Persian_Empire_ca._620_A.D.jpg let us use this map from now on. It is much better looking than any of the previous maps that anyone has put in the infobox of the article and you have got to admit that it is at least more accurate than this one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:SassanianEmpireHistoryofIran.png especially when it comes to Central Asia and the Caucasus. In fact, to everyone including Constantine, you can use my map and modify it to your liking! But please don't revert or remove it. It's more accurate (than the previous maps) and it looks better especially since it is a more physical map am I wrong? Peace and Cheers! :D Keeby101 (talk) 21:44, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You've again included all of Anatolia despite Constantine's repeated objections and directions to more accurate, scholarly maps. You cite a long list of works, yet never point to specific page numbers, nor attempt to summarize the arguments they make. So apparently we are expected to go looking for these texts and root around until we find the material you refer to. Constantine links directly to specific passages from well-accepted sources, yet you never address those. And despite being asked repeatedly and directed to talk page etiquette guidelines, you persist in using bolding and all caps -- the equivalent of screaming at people. How many reasonable conversations have you had where one party is constantly yelling? You've been asked repeatedly to find consensus *before* changing the map, yet you continue to ignore that and change the map on your own, while demanding that no one revert it. You are again insistent on trying to "win" your edit war -- a wrong-headed notion, directly in conflict with the spirit and method of Wikipedia. Perhaps Constantine and others will eventually give up out of sheer exasperation, but the real loser will be the accuracy of the article. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 23:10, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Whoa! Now I never yelled or screamed at anyone Laszlo. Where are you getting that idea. Just because I use bold letters does not automatically mean screaming at someone. Also, I have tried to point out specific page numbers, but I do not know how which is exactly why I have this topic on my talk page:

"Need of Help! Citing my sources and how to cite them properly as well as how and where to find the right ones!"

And yes, I got a strikingly similar response to when it came to caps and bold letters and I even said that I won't do that anymore. I just lose temper sometimes and use bold letters and caps. I won't do that anymore on this talk page either. Back to the original topic, I have a thread posted on my talk page that I just cited above and in that thread I stated that I currently have a very difficult time citing the pages of the books. The books are easily readable online and I have read them before outside of the internet and online, but the problem is is that I rented those books from my local libraries and as for online? Well as far as I can tell, unless if someone managed to help me find a way to read those books that I have cited for free rather than paying $160-$250 just to read them online, I can't cite the pages. That is exactly why I made that topic on my talk page for anyone including Constantine to help me find a way to cite those pages and the only I can do that is if I go back to those local libraries, rent the books and read them all over again or buy the books online. If you have noticed, I haven't been active on Wikipedia in days and I came back only yesterday. I am very busy in real life (to which reminds me on a side note, how do I put that on my user page because I have seen others do so as well?) and have a job that takes a ton of my free time away. I can only make these maps in the little spare time that I have. So when I am gone or better yet while I am active on Wikipedia, please everyone help me. I tried to get Constantine to come to my talk page to discuss this topic that I cited above this long paragraph that I am typing to you all, I even tried to get Bwilkins or anyone on Wikipedia for that matter to discuss that topic with me on my talk page and help me and to this day no one has responded to it except for one person who said what you just said to me which is to not use caps and/or bold letters. So I ask you all to please, please visit my talk page, discuss that topic and help me. :( Keeby101 (talk) 00:08, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Actually, looking back I even went on to your talk page Laszlo and asked you to discuss that topic with me and you never responded. Why? Look, all I need is just a little help and that is it. If you guys help me with this, I will never discuss this map topic again. Reason, because when I figure out how to cite those pages and cite them on this talk page as well as quote from them. It will at least help end this dispute. Now, do not get the notion that I have never read any of these books because I have, problem is that I read those books long ago, maybe a year and a half ago to be precise and I do not exactly keep track of page numbers lol. I simply read them and absorb knowledge from them as I stated on my talk page. Still, please everyone contribute to helping me with this. It will decrease tensions between us and any other user that I come across and get into an edit war with such as the bigger edit war I am in with another user on the Megatherium talk page about the date of the Megatherium's extinction. :) Keeby101 (talk) 00:20, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are asking me -- no, "everyone" -- to teach you how to do research and cite sources. I'm sorry, but I don't have time to be your tutor, and I have research of my own to conduct in the limited time I do have. You say you are busy but disregard that we are, too. You do not have to link to everything you cite, but providing page numbers is essential. Simply saying, I read it a long time ago does not help someone who wants to look up the source. (Ultimately, WP is a research source to lead others to more comprehensive sources; if you do not cite with precision, it does not help people find information they are seeking.) If the book is online, provide a link. How? Look at how Constantine cites his sources and follow that. Go to tutorial pages (as I have directed you to before) and figure it (like we have had to do). Ask at the help desk where people volunteer to help. How to do research? Google research methodology and read up on the subject. Take some courses -- I've spent years learning to do thorough and precise research. Want an example of how to cite a statement, here you go: "Avoid excessive emphasis: CAPITAL LETTERS are considered shouting and are virtually never appropriate. Bolding may be used to highlight key words or phrases (most usually to highlight "oppose" or "support" summaries of an editor's view), but should be used judiciously, as it may appear the equivalent of the writer raising his voice. WP:SHOUT." I've repeatedly encouraged you to review etiquette guidelines and other wiki-policies (including the page I quote here), but you continue to lose your temper and disregard them. Getting in constant edit wars with people should tell you that you are approaching this improperly. I tried to explain that a couple of weeks ago, but it is simply taking up all my wiki-time and is apparently not helping. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 01:19, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, understood and actually your explanations to me are helping a little. On the bolding and shouting part, I aknowledged all of what you said and stated on my talk page that I will no longer do that. I will not bold or use caps anymore, repeat, will not do that anymore. Now I have not disregarded the pages you have directed me to. At least not all of them, I disregarded the tutorial pages for reasons I have no idea why and I regret it. Truly I do not mean to bold or use all caps. I indeed have a short temper and I will fix that. Now I will go to those tutorial pages when I have spare time and when I figure it out (which will take a while) I will cite the pages as you all have asked Ok. Peace ☮ Keeby101 (talk) 02:41, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear God, this map is like a nationlist's wet dream. The Sassanids did NOT annex and hold Anatolia any more than the Nazis annexed and held Poland! I want to revert it to something less...terrible...but there isn't anything much better out there. Constantine's proposals have so far seemed the most reasonable to me, but someone really needs to make a proper map. There are plenty of more accurate maps available online, why is it so hard to just base a map off of one of those? Zaldax (talk) 05:36, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I was about to re-nominate this issue at the Map Workshop, but got sidetracked with keeping up with Keeby's antics. I thought about making a map myself, but somehow I feel that I would not be seen as "neutral" enough. Anyhow, I propose we submit this case to the Map Workshop, and hope that it will actually be done this time around. Constantine ✍ 10:23, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wow....Just wow! I logged off after a few days after creating my first article List of species rumored/believed to still be alive then log back in and were back to square one yet again... If you were to give me a chance to cite my sources I.E. figure out how to cite the pages of those books and then cite them, then you would understand that they did conquer Asia minor. I find it funny how you call it a nationalist wet dream! This article has been subject to attacks, clashes, edit wars from both uber nationalist Greeks such as Constantine and Iranian nationalists such as Xashaiar (presumed). Even Wikipedia Administrator Sowlos agreed on that one and even said and I quote "Many nationalistic and ethnic biases play into the historical revisionism and vandalism the related articles have had to grapple with over the years." I am an American and as a result of that, I am completely unbiased unlike some people on this talk page. Oh, btw Constantine, Laszlo and Zaldaz! Kathovo went on to my talk page and pointed out Encyclopedia Iranica as a credible, accurate and reliable source. In fact several people have pointed out Ecyclopedia Iranica asa credible, accurate and reliable source. I have linked so many books that I have read it is unbelievable (still having trouble citing the pages) and guess what? They all say that YES! The Sasanian Empire did conquer Asia minor and held it firmly for 3 years! With that being said, Encyclopedia Iranica is no longer considered "Dubious" website! HistoryofIran had an edit war with you guys and won! And I will bring will win this edit war to. Here are a few quotes from Encylopedia Iranica: http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/khosrow-ii In 610 Heraclius (d. 641) overthrew Phocas and sought peace once again, but Ḵosrow refused. His armies continued their march in two directions: Šahr­varāz took Antioch, Apamea, Caesarea, Mazaca, Da­mascus, Jerusalem (whence he sent the “true cross” to Persia), and, in 616, Egypt. Šāhēn conquered the whole of Asia Minor, entered Chalcedon after a short siege, and encamped within a mile of Constantinople itself, http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/khosrow-iiOver the following nine years (607-15), the pace of the Persian advance gradually quickened. Key gains were Theodosiopolis, which capitulated once Theodosius was recognized as legitimate claimant in 608, and Edessa, which was captured in 609. Taking advantage of political divisions on the Roman side which climaxed in Heraclius’ usurpation at the beginning of October 610, Persian forces breached the Romans’ innermost line of defense on the Euphrates, taking and holding Caesarea of Cappadocia in the north (611), capturing Antioch and pushing on to the Mediterranean coast in the south (612). They may have been extruded from Cappadocia (in 612), but in the south they defeated a field army commanded by Heraclius in person in 613, occupied Syria and northern Palestine, intervened in Jerusalem to stop a pogrom (614), and were able, in 615, to advance across Asia Minor and appear on the Asian shore of the Bosporus within sight of Constantinople http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/byzantine-iranian-relations the Persians who in the early seventh century conquered Egypt and Asia Minor lost decisive battles a generation later when nimble, lightly armed Arabs accustomed to skirmishes and desert warfare attacked them. Hired light-armed Arab or East Iranian mercenaries could have served them much better. http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/sasanian-dynasty: Iranian troops swept through Mesopotamia, Syria, Palestine (Jerusalem was captured in 614, and the “True Cross” was transferred to Ctesiphon [Flussin]), Cilicia, Armenia Minor, Cappadocia, and the rest of Asia Minor. By 616, they were camping at Chalcedon, opposite Constantinople.

I really did not want this to go in the direction it did, but I am glad that I caught this. Hell even Administrator Stephen Schulz agreed that it was hard to cite the pages of the books that I cited. In any case. To everyone, my map is more accurate than all of the maps on Wikimedia Commons. So I am either going to refile on WP:DR or I am going to the map workshop as well and have them review my current map. Keeby101 (talk) 03:55, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Um, sorry, but no. I pointed out that it is hard to find out what you are referring to (because the information you give is insufficient), and gave you an example of how to cite a source. And, looking through the sources, it does indeed seem to me as if you confuse temporary possession during a campaign with "being part of the empire". What's more, you still cite 19th century sources and dubious websites. Take a step back, use good sources only (and preferably ones which talk about the extend of the empire, not its temporary military campaigns), and see what you can glean from them. Note that the Sassanian Empire basically collapsed in less than 10 years after 620, exactly because it was hopelessly overextended and did not exert effective control of the areas it had campaigned in. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 06:07, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I think it is pointless to continue engaging in conversation with Keeby. He obviously does not want and/or is not able to take any sort of advice. Especially after edits in recent days like this, which I had specifically told him on my talk page wouldn't happen, following it up with this completely ludicrous motion and then seeing his behaviour here, where he threatens and rants against two of the most respected and knowledgeable users I know, I am no longer willing to assume WP:AGF for him. His behaviour has long crossed the boundaries of trolling. Constantine ✍ 07:24, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, have it your way then, but just to let you all know I am willing to take advice as I just did from Stephan Schulz whom I would like to reply to his comment by saying that I do not know how and why those 19th century sources and "dubious websites" appeared on my recent reflist. I did not mean to do so, I only meant to cite the current sources I.E. the late 20th - 21st century books and Encyclopedia Iranica. You think that engaging in conversations with me is pointless then you are dead wrong. You call me a troll and think I am trolling is not the first time that this has happened and obviously were back to square one. I put a request on the Map Workshop for you everyone seeing as no one did such. So when the users on Map Workshop make a new and accurate map of the Sasanian Empire, hopefully it will end this conversation. I was honestly done with this page a week ago.' Now, as for the threatened part? I never "threatened" anyone, but that one user Kansas Bear was coming off a bit rude when I even made such a proposal. I was going to make it where the current articles would be kept and I would create my own article that would have links to those pages. In recent days, I have been working on this article of mine List of species rumored/believed to still be alive and have been basically warring for it's survival. I take a look for my watchlist seeing if the discussion for it's deletion had been closed or not and then I see that this has resurfaced. Personally and in my honest opinion I thought that the conversation that I had with Laszlo on this topic with the last words being: "Alright, understood and actually your explanations to me are helping a little. On the bolding and shouting part, I aknowledged all of what you said and stated on my talk page that I will no longer do that. I will not bold or use caps anymore, repeat, will not do that anymore. Now I have not disregarded the pages you have directed me to. At least not all of them, I disregarded the tutorial pages for reasons I have no idea why and I regret it. Truly I do not mean to bold or use all caps. I indeed have a short temper and I will fix that. Now I will go to those tutorial pages when I have spare time and when I figure it out (which will take a while) I will cite the pages as you all have asked Ok. Peace ☮" was the last of this whole fiasco, but apparently not. I truly could care less about the whole situation on the talk page now. I do not even know what [[WP:AGF] is btw and honestly at this point I could care less. Since a consensus was never reached on this talk page, I took it upon myself to file a new request to either improve my map or to make an entirely new map altogether, one that would be as accurate as possible. YOU ALL CAN THANK ME FOR THAT!! In the meantime, I am going back to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of species rumored/believed to still be alive to try to save my very first article from collapsing. You can engage in conversations with me there where it won't be pointless to do so. Bye! Keeby101 (talk) 01:29, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment copied from preserved section on the move to "Sasanian Empire":

I cannot really see a pattern of usage between the two forms; as I wrote above, they seem to be used interchangeably. Nevertheless, you do make a valid point: we do not want to make "Sassanid" disappear off Wikipedia if the move goes ahead. We should definitely include both forms in the lede to this article, and personally I will make sure that both forms are used in articles. For article titles, categories, etc, where most of the renaming will be done, I would agree with retaining "Sassanid" for the dynasty and its members, with "Sas[s]anian" for the state, similar to the Arsacid/Parthian differentiation for their predecessors. I don't think we can have this as a guideline since there is no "correct" version, but perhaps, after those who participate in this discussion might express their own views on this subject, we can always point to this discussion as a reference for usage. Constantine ✍ 19:26, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

How the forms will be used is now necessary to decide. The intro at present simply alternates between the two terms, and I haven't even looked beyond that. The internal guideline proposed in the comment above appears reasonable to me, though applying it could be tricky. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 17:06, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the reasonable thing would be IMO to be internally consistent within each article. For instance, this article or other topical articles like Sasanian architecture etc should use "Sasanian" per their titles, but an article on, say someone like Tamkhosrau or an event like the Battle of Daras could continue to use "Sassanid" and no change would be needed. On the dynasty itself, I would as indicated support the use of Sassanid, but this would raise the issue of consistency within the articles; we cannot have things like "the Sassanid dynasty ruled the Sasanian Empire"... On the other hand, as it has been pointed out in the move discussion, this is largely an arbitrary distinction to make, so I would like to see more opinions on this. Constantine ✍ 19:45, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Agreed. --HistoryofIran (talk) 13:33, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome! Does anyone else agree with these recommendations that I have proposed? Keeby101 (talk) 15:39, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Fair enough for me.--Kathovo talk 08:02, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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)[reply]

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:

^{[1] [2] [3]}

Chosroes II continues his victorious career, conquering Egypt and Asia Minor and occupying both Alexandria and also Chaceldon across the Bosporus from Constinanople.^[4]

^[5]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.

^{[6] [7]}

^[8] 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.

^[9]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.

^[10]

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}} on talkpages instead... Begoon ^talk 02:37, 4 November 2013 (UTC))[reply]

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)[reply]

What just happened? The latest section on this talk page is gone, all that I was trying to do was cite my sources properly and get rid of the old sources and now everything is screwed up. Keeby101 (talk) 19:45, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]