Talk:Cambyses I

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Lukeav.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 16:36, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Dates and numbers in this article
Wikipedia policy is clear on the use of Eras in articles:


 * ''Both the BCE/CE era names and the BC/AD era names are acceptable, but be consistent within an article. Normally you should use plain numbers for years in the Common Era, but when events span the start of the Common Era, use AD or CE for the date at the end of the range (note that AD precedes the date and CE follows it). For example, 1 BC–1|AD 1 or 1 BCE–1|1 CE.

It is up to the author(s) of an article to determine the dating system to be used and there must be consistency with each article. In this case, for a non-Christian topic in a non-Christian region of the world, BCE/CE would seem to make the most sense. Sunray 19:49, 2005 May 22 (UTC)


 * Sigh*, RickK has reverted and until one or more authors of this article indicate a preference for BCE/CE, it will have to remain BC/AD. Sunray 07:07, 2005 May 23 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was move. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 05:25, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Cambyses of Anshan → Cambyses I — - The name "Cambyses of Anshan" is not used anywhere. And since "Cambyses I" is not ambiguous, and the only one with this name I propose this move. Also using google books test makes sure that Cambyses I is the correct name. --Xashaiar (talk) 12:59, 30 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I will deal with this proposed move and the previous two together. The existing titles are in keeping with Wikipedia naming conventions for royalty since, in the first instance, we disambiguate monarchs by the country they ruled over.  We do need the "of Persia" designation with the Dariuses to distinguish them from another Darius, it would be artificial to switch this on and off.  PatGallacher (talk) 19:49, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * NO we do not need that "of Persia". There is no ambiguity in simple titles I have proposed and no encyclopaedia uses the extra "of Persia". Xashaiar (talk) 02:14, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is entitled to adopt its own naming conventions. "Cambyses II" is unambiguous, but so is "Cambyses of Persia".  Robert III and James V are unambiguous, but we add the "of Scotland" to the end since it would be artificial to switch the "of Scotland" on and off when going through the Scots Stewart monarchs for reasons which have nothing to do with Scots history, only with developments in other countries. PatGallacher (talk) 12:02, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
 * So Wikipedia is always right and it is reality which is wrong (reality=the common use of the English language)? I honestly can only wonder in amazement how Alexander the Great managed to avoid the ghastly fate of Napoleon I of France (instead of 'Napoleon Bonaparte' which is used to a overwhelming degree). Flamarande (talk) 22:39, 1 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Support the move, common English names should be used unless strong reasons and evidence to the contrary. Flamarande (talk) 22:38, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Etymology
I can't understand the English in the new section on etymology that discusses Toynbee. I also think there is too much emphasis on Toynbee. Dougweller (talk) 21:05, 8 July 2012 (UTC)


 * The etymology section is larger than the article was previously. It should be pruned. Debresser (talk) 23:42, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Cambyses I vs Cambyses II
I thought it might be helpful here on the Talk page to discuss how to discern between Cambyses I and Cambyses II. There are a couple of things that make confusion easy - and indeed, you'll find many a scholarly work which confuses the two. Both are the sons of a Cyrus - Cyrus I and Cyrus II. Most frequently, but not always, when Herodotus refers to Cambyses, he is referring to Cambyses II. An example of an exception to this would be Herodotus I.107. I have two recommendations for clarity, but welcome any other points from other editors that would help future Wikipedians. My two are: These are just meant as rules of thumb, but will hopefully be helpful. DOstendorff (talk) 20:37, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) Pay attention to years of life or reign.  Cambyses I is born early 7th century and dies mid-6th century.  Cambyses II reigns for a short period of time in the early 5th century.  If it is 530 BC/BCE or 520s BC/BCE, it is Cambyses II.  If it is around 600 BC/BCE through 580 BC/BCE, it will be Cambyses I.
 * 2) Next, pay attention to what kingdom they are associated with.  If it is pre-Persia - and the king is associated with Anshan, Acan, etc. then it will be Cambyses I.  If the language clearly associates it with Persia, it is Cambyses II.

Life and Reign dates of Cambyses I
The article contradicts the Cyrus the Great article in making both born c.600 BCE. The evidence in the Encyclopedia Iranica seems to me to favor Cyrus II to have been born then, with Cambyses I c.630 BCE, reigning from c.600-559 BCE: Also Cyrus I's reign is dated c.640-600 BCE making Cambyses I reign from around 600:    Cornelius (talk) 04:20, 7 June 2018 (UTC)