Talk:Akhshunwar

Information
, hello! Are you sure about the information in the section "War with the Sasanians"? According to Zeimal, who killed and mutilated the persians was another king named Kunkhas, who was mentined in Priscus' chronicle. The war was between the Sasanian Empire and the Kidarite Kingdom, not the Hephthalites:

"When war with Iran broke out again in the 460s, Balkh (Po-ho or b’âklâ in the Ancient Chinese sources) was in the possession of the Kidarites, if we accept that the town of Balaam mentioned by Priscus is in fact Balkh.28 At that time, the ruler of the Kidarites was Kunkhas, whose father (the source does not name him) had earlier refused to continue to pay tribute to the Sasanians. Peroz, however, no longer had the strength to continue the eastern campaign; in 464, according to Priscus, the envoys of Peroz turned to Byzantium for financial support to ward off invasion by the Kidarites but it was refused.

In an attempt to put an end to the war, Peroz made peace overtures to King Kunkhas, offering him his sister’s hand in marriage, but sent him a woman of lowly birth instead. The deception was soon discovered and Kunkhas decided to seek revenge. He asked Peroz to send him experienced Iranian officers to lead his troops. Peroz sent 300 of these ‘military instructors’, but when they arrived Kunkhas ordered a number of them to be killed and sent the others back mutilated to Iran, with the message that this was his revenge for Peroz’s deception. The ensuing war against Kunkhas and the Kidarites ended in 467 with the capture of their capital city of ‘Balaam’. It appears that the Hephthalites were again Peroz’s allies, as they had been in his struggle with Hormizd for the throne of Iran. This put a final end to Kidarite rule in Tokharistan. After their defeat the Kidarites were probably forced to retreat to Gandhara, where, as previously mentioned, the Hephthalites again caught up with them at the end of the fifth century."--Renato de carvalho ferreira (talk) 04:50, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Comparing the information, what you added on Peroz I's article is correct about this topic.--Renato de carvalho ferreira (talk) 04:53, 21 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Kunkhas is another form of the name Khushnavaz, I would have added that in the article but I haven't had time. The Peroz I article needs change as well. --HistoryofIran (talk) 13:03, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Considering this, what can we admit about the Hephthalites and Kidarites? Are they all and the same? What do the sources say?--Renato de carvalho ferreira (talk) 15:15, 21 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Renato de carvalho ferreira: It's so annoying, I can't find all the sources that explained about the Hephthalite and Kidarites during the reign of Peroz I, but I have found one, which says that Kunkhas and Khushnavaz were most likely the same person, which also makes more sense if you read the full story about Peroz I and his problems in the east. --HistoryofIran (talk) 16:23, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the answer. All the sources I read and all that I used (see pt:Reino Cidarita and pt:Cunchas) mentioned that Kidarites and Hephthalites were two distinct groups of Huns and, that's why, Kunkhas and Khushnavaz were different people (some authors considered that maybe the name of the former can be written Kungas, Kungkas or Khungkhas). I agree with them because, chronologically, the events of 467 and the wars between Sasanians and Kidarites during the 440s-460s could explain the Kidarite's expansion so deep into Gupta Empire during the same period, and all the sources agreed that Sasanians were helped by Hephthalites since Yazdegerd II's reign. The conflict between Sasanians and Hephthalites maybe started after the final destruction of Kidarites' base of power in Bactria and the run to annex the region. Moreover, René Grousset considered that Priscus' information about 467 can be linked to a unnamed Kidarite king that engaged the Sasanians after Peroz has killed his father Kunkhas. What I suggest here is to create a separate article to Kunkhas and there put everything we have on Priscus's account and then mention this theory of they being the same person. This also could be done here.--Renato de carvalho ferreira (talk) 01:30, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
 * And some authors, por exemple X. Tremblay and Daniel T. Potts, suggested that Kunkhas was a Hellenization to qūn qan (khan of the Qun) ou khan of the Huns, something really possible. I didn't see any writer doing such correlation with Khushnavaz's name, despite could be possible too. Maybe could help us here.--Renato de carvalho ferreira (talk) 01:42, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi to both. Sorry, this is outside my area of expertise. As usual, however, this is a question of what scholars say: if the prevailing view equates the two men, then that's what we go with. If not, then two separate articles it is. It does appear to me that the two names can be clearly separated chronologically as well, so the two articles, with mutual references, are at the very least a safe option until the situation is clarified with further sources. Constantine   ✍  23:00, 25 March 2016 (UTC)