Talk:Azes II

There was likely only one king Azes
and I have modified the article to say that. I have removed all the coin images because I feel that they should appear on the Azes page instead.

The coins of "Azes II" should be attributed to a single Azes, as proven decisively by Robert Senior in 2008 when an overstrike of "Azes I" over "Azes II" was found. Senior had already presented a number of rather forcing chronological arguments for this view in his encyclopaedia, which is the standard reference work. I hope this does not give the impression that there is vivid scholarly dissent over the matter. Even though Senior has collected these types of coins for almost half a century, he is the leading authority mainly because so few other scholars have specialised on this period, which is very obscure due to the lack of written sources.

It will still be possible to refer to older works that have not taken Senior's new coin evidence into account; I very much expect that some less specialised books will still include Azes II even in the future. But I have not seen any evidence or arguments against Senior's reconstruction.

This admittedly drastic change is part of the same revision of Indo-Scythian and Indo-Parthian chronology that has already been applied to the Indo-Parthian page and that of Gondophares I. I have commented on this revision extensively on the discussion pages there - the evidence for it is relatively new and unknown outside specialist scientific journals, but it is nonetheless rather forcing to its nature. Please do not revert my edits without addressing the new advances in research. I would have asked around, but I feel that these pages have largely been created by PHG, who isn't active anymore.

If somebody feels that it was too drastic to remove Azes II, the idea that there were two kings could be added as an alternative. I simply thought that it was best to remove the references to his coins, his place in the regent list etc, at once. I hope to transfer some of that material to Azes' page, if nobody disagrees.Sponsianus (talk) 22:33, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I replaced the content, but also merged it with your version. I honestly don't know enough to confirm or deny either version, and recognize the lack of research on the topic. I'm going to try and cast a wider net for editorials knowledgeable on the period. Hiberniantears (talk) 18:49, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I haven't read Senior's recent research about the overstrike myself, but I fully trust User:Sponsianus on this matter (as on all matters we've worked together on for years now). In light of these new findings, I agree that the two articles Azes II and Azes I should be merged into one Azes article. PHG/ Per Honor et Gloria  ✍  20:52, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Azes II. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060612180233/http://www.wildwinds.com/coins/greece/indo_scythians/azes_II/t.html to http://www.wildwinds.com/coins/greece/indo_scythians/azes_II/t.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 01:48, 23 October 2016 (UTC)