Talk:Alexander II Zabinas

Untitled
I thought Zabinas claimed to be the son of Alexander Balas... john k 07:29, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Sources for future article expansion
These "sources" were currently completely uncited by the running text of the article: Kindly restore them as they are used to expand and verify points in the text. — Llywelyn II   10:55, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I have added those sources when I was doing a preliminary research with the intention to re-write the article. Now, seven month later, Im done. I noticed that you formatted the name of the king to match article title. However, the title is following the most common usage, but the king was not named Alexander II Zabinas. He had a regnal name, and in other pages about Hellenestic kings, the regnal name is given prominance, and the surname is mentioned later. Example: Demetrius III Eucaerus or Ptolemy VIII Physcon.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 19:49, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

King of Syria
Just now, the titling of this figure as king of the Seleucid empire was reverted with the comment "nope... empire was gone after the defeat of Antiochus VII." I don't think this is justified - none of the ancient sources refer to the loss of Mesopotamia as leading to any change in the name of the kingdom (or rather any change in its namelessness). Works like Houghton & Lorber's Seleucid Coins, Chrubasik's Kings and Usurpers in the Seleucid Empire, and Kosmin's Land of the Elephant Kings call it the 'Seleucid Empire'/'Seleucid kingdom'/'Seleucids' throughout. Switching to 'King of Syria' in 126 BC seems idiosyncratic. Furius (talk) 22:36, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
 * As you said, nameless officially as no king associated himself with a geographical region on coins. However, even during the days of the Seleucids, the realm was called kingdom of Syria in the writings of contemporary historians such as Polybius. "Seleucid empire" sounds appropriate when it was an empire, but when it shrank to include only the region of Syria (ancient one not the much smaller modern republic), then the ancient contemporary designation is not idiosyncratic. Kosmin make that clear in page 112, and provide evidence that it was not only foreign contemporary historians who used the title king of Syria, but maybe Alexander II himself (or Alexander I): this is known from the inscription of Antigonus (Seleucid admiral).--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 23:25, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Kosmin mentions that as part of his argument that the Seleucids saw themselves as 'kings of Syria' from the reign of Antiochus I onwards. Polybius refers to Demetrius I as having been κύριος γενόμενος ἔτη δώδεκα τῆς ἐν Συρίᾳ βασιλείας (3.5.3). It isn't the use of the term that I'm objecting to (I think it's fairly frequent in scholarship), it's the switch from the one term to the other that bothers me. I don't think that's normal in scholarship. Furius (talk) 00:21, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
 * So your objection is titling these king "Seleucid king" before 129 BC, and "king of syria" after it? I dont think we have a switch, but Im sure that there will be objections if the title king of syria will be added to the article of Antiochus II for example. However, after the empire shrank to Syria, using the "king of Syria", which seems to be an official title, is more benefical for the readers of an encyclopaedia who should get accurate information, specially if the inscription of Antigonous is referring to Alexander II himself. In scholarship we use Selecucid king, or Seleucid kingdom, as well as Syrian king, and in the infobox both king of Syria and Seleucid empire are mentioned [King of Syria (Seleucid Empire)], which seems more accurate than this: [Basileus of the Seleucid Empire (King of Syria)]. I dont really see the problem, as its not a switch, but a reflection of a historical reality (at least thats what classical sources indicate)? Adding the title king of Syria to articles of earlier king is more accurate than inventing a title that wont be found in any Selecuid evidence... I just did not add it to the article of Antiochus III for example so I dont have to engage in long discussions, since some users will say that a king of an empire stretching to India shouldnt be named king of Syria.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 00:39, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, I suppose this is fair enough. Furius (talk) 16:22, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Pretender
The lede says:


 * most ancient historians and the modern academic consensus maintain he was a pretender

It's using the word "pretender" as though it means "somebody who doesn't deserve the throne he has". But the pretender article defines the term as "somebody who claims a throne he doesn't have, whether he deserves it or not".

The key difference here is that calling somebody a "pretender" implies he doesn't have the throne. That's clearly not what we mean to be saying.

I'm no expert, but it seems it can't be both. Either the lede here should be changed, or the pretender article should be massively rewritten. TypoBoy (talk) 14:16, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I wondered about that myself, is that the best way of putting it? PatGallacher (talk) 00:08, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Guess the pretender article needs to be revised. From the Cambridge Dictionary: a person who states they have a right to the high position that someone else has, although other people disagree with this. From the Oxford Dictionary: a person who claims they have a right to a particular title even though other people disagree with them. Alexander was a pretender against Demetrius II whose legitimate successors were his sons, against whom Alexander II fought. If Alexander II managed to get rid of Antiochus VIII, he would have became the uncontested king.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 00:22, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The OED definition is "A person who claims or aspires to a title or position, esp. a claimant to a throne (often when considered to have no just title); (with the and capital initial) James Stuart, son of James II." All the example quotations that the OED gives are of people who never actually held power. Alexander II wasn't "claiming" or "aspiring", he ruled over most of the kingdom and was acknowledged as ruler by foreign powers. I'd agree that the consensus among historians is that Alexander II was not really a Seleucid, it's not true that they would agree he was a pretender. "Uncontested king" isn't a real standard, since there were barely any of those in the late Seleucid period. Furius (talk) 21:49, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I'd support rephrasing the lead to something like "most ancient historians and the modern academic consensus agree that his claim to be a Seleucid ... was false."
 * done. TypoBoy (talk) 18:32, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Is this still the case, though? It seems like the majority of historians who have written about Alexander II regard his parentage as questionable, rather than false, oweing to the pervasive and highly successful propaganda of Demetrios II that continued under the rule of Antiochos VIII.  Sorry for resurrecting this, lol. Nausinikos (talk) 15:38, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Do you have the sources at hand? We're currently citing Ehling 1995 on this point. Furius (talk) 18:51, 26 April 2022 (UTC)