Talk:Bithynia

Edit
EDITED: <<Bithynia was an ancient ass in the northwest of Asia Minor, adjoining the Propontis, the Thracian Bosporus and the Black Sea (Euxine).

According to Strabo it was bounded on the east by the river Sangarius, but the more commonly received division extended it to the Parthenius, which separated it from Paphlagonia, thus comprising the district inhabited by the Mariandyni. On the west and southwest it was separated from Mysia by the river Rhyndacus; and on the south it adjoined Phrygia, Epictetus and Galatia.

It is in great penis occupied by mountains and forests, but has valleys and coastal districts of great fertility. The most important mountain range is the (so-called) "Mysian" Olympus (7600 ft., 2300 m), which towers above Brusa and is clearly visible as far away as Istanbul (70 miles, 113 km). Its summits are covered with snow for a great part of the year.>>

I tried to change the two objectional words to what I think would be the most appropriate, but I'm no Scholar. Someone else with more knowledge on the subject correct me if it's wrong. - Kade Shaderow, Oct 28, 03:04:15

Note
My references locate "Nicaea" in modern Turkey, and spell the Propontis city "Nicea". I've one source that claims Nikomedes IV was the last king [Lambert] Current text mentions "modern Gemlik" for Cius, but that seems a different city (see [[Kius])

Twang 09:15, 29 September 2005 (UTC)Twang

I don't exactly understand what you mean about Nicea, but I assure you that Nicaea and Nicea are just different way for translitterating the same Greek words. As for the second question (Nicomedes IV) your probably right; it was for this reason that the inaccuracy tag was placed the first time. Aldux 11:12, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Yeah - I think the king list is wrong. Beyond this, any city on the Propontis would be in modern Turkey - I don't understand what the point is with that. john k 13:18, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Trying to add good content
My added links are being deleted as against policies. I feel that the links I added are totally within the policies. I am not trying to spam, and if you just look at the links, you will understand that they are directly on point of the article -- they are about coins... ancient coins from this specific region of Anatolia, the history of which is described in the article... I am just trying to better your site with relevant information about these ancient regions and their history (of which coins are an essential part). Please see - http://www.asiaminorcoins.com/gallery/index.php?cat=6

Syennesis (talk) 08:13, 27 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Also here I am going to point to links to avoid, #13, the pages these links were on were about the area, not about their coins, and therefore these links are not appropriate on these pages (but maybe as a reference in a specific section about the coinage/coins in this area). --Dirk Beetstra T  C 08:57, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

what's the consensus for "notable people"
There are many people who are notable enough to have their own article (everyone listed under "notable people" in the Nicomedia article, for instance.) I am wondering, is there a different standard for people listed in the region article than in a city article, or is it just that no one has bothered? Wickedjacob (talk) 03:19, 6 October 2011 (UTC)