Talk:Demetrius I of Bactria

Untitled
Is this the only Demetrius in history? -- Zoe

Please don't link king Menander to Menander the author. JJ

Coinage
Another coin of Demetrius at the British Museum. Feel free to insert it into the article. PHG (talk) 09:56, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Demetrius I of Bactria. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20151008023525/http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.01.0239 to http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0239

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 00:24, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Table at bottom
In the table, "Greco-Bactrian and Indo-Greek Kings", the last two rows are missing the first column (dates). A guess might be "10 – 225 CE" and "15 – 90 CE" based on the reign dates on the pages of the rulers cited. Bcjohnston (talk) 15:28, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

King of Kings
Despite limited sources I believe it’s almost guaranteed Demetrius used a title above the mere rank of King considering he ruled an empire that from Hyrcania in eastern Iran to the Indian Ocean. Thoughts ? ShahofHyrcania (talk) 22:39, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Three thoughts: (1) It's not almost guaranteed - the Ptolemies and Seleucids both ruled kingdoms of larger scale and nevertheless used the "mere" title of basileus. (2) Wikipedia requires that all statements on the page be supported by reliable sources - even if you believe something, you can't add it to the encyclopedia unless there is a source for it. (3) This is particularly important in cases like the Graeco-Bactrians, where the sources are limited - if we don't restrict ourselves to what is actually known, we're writing fiction, not history. Furius (talk) 00:04, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Tarn
@User:ZenoTheIonian; it is really good that you have taken up this article and the other Greco-Bactrian kings - they are in desperate need of improvement. However, we really have to talk about Tarn. You may credit him, but he is out-dated (because much more has been discovered - he wrote before the discovery of Ai Khanoum!) and had a tendency to just make stuff up. This isn't just my opinion - it is noted by every single author to write on Greco-Bactria since him. For example:
 * Lerner, Jeffrey D. (1999). The impact of Seleucid decline on the eastern Iranian plateau : the foundations of Arsacid Parthia and Graeco-Bactria. pp. 56-59
 * F. Holt, Lost World of the Golden King (2012) pp 69-88 (nearly twenty pages on this point).
 * articles in R. Mairs, The Graeco-Bactrian and Indo-Greek World (2021)
 * Coloru p. 137 "his approach was too Hellenocentric and his historical reconstruction was often highly speculative, to say the least"
 * Stanco p. 281 "now considerably outdate"
 * Glenn p. 467: "dubious, with the narratives often making wonderful, gripping stories, but being highly conjectural" & p. 477-8: "Tarn is very often to be found overworking the evidence provided by the coins and it is possible to cite many examples of this feature of Tarn's work" (which he goes on to do at length and further in his book Money and Power in Hellenistic Bactria (2020) )

These are just the books on Graeco-Bactria that are in my room right now. Similar comments already in A. K. Narain. It is surely worth using him as a source, but I don't think it is acceptable to retain points that have been overturned by subsequent scholarship without serious health warnings. Furius (talk) 16:06, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Indeed. I can’t deny this. I’ve read and enjoyed much of Tarns Hellenistic work, so perhaps I’m biased. And you are right that Basileus is not mere - apologies for saying so, but didn’t Seleucid monarchs use the old Achaemenid title - King of the universe or the world ? ZenoTheIonian (talk) 16:56, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

As for Demetrius’ mother, Tarn may have made up a Diodotid connection, but it’s not far fetched. As the founding Greco-Bactrian dynasty, Diodotus I and his scions would have held considerable influence and Euthydemus probably would (if not already married to a sister of Diodotus II) would have do so upon his ascension to the throne... Are there any other modern authors who have found a possible consort for Euthydemus? ZenoTheIonian (talk) 17:04, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I think my worry is that it is easy to construct an argument that fits the data when the data is so patchy, but we run the risk of original research. I agree that your point about Diodotus II is totally plausible, but the opposite also seems totally plausible to me: if Euthydemus violently overthrew Diodotus, he might not have wanted to legitimise the previous dynasty by marrying into it (e.g. Trajan didn't marry his niece or nephew to any of the Flavians). Polybius has Euthydemus tell Antiochus III that he shouldn't be punished as a rebel from Seleucid power because he overthrew the rebel Diodotids, an argument that would be weakened if he was married to the rebel's daughter... but perhaps Antiochus was willing to accept a weak argument just to get the whole thing over and done with. And so on. So, for myself, I'm totally uncertain and this is why I'm being pedantic about citing opinions clearly. The modern sources that I've read all say 'but this is speculative' and decline to speculate further... but they're mostly numismatists, who are particularly nervous about speculation. Frank Walbank A Historical Commentary on Polybius might be a little more forthcoming?
 * Yes, the early Seleucids are referred to by the 'King of the universe' title in Babylonian documents written in Akkadian, but not in Greek and (I think) not in Aramaic. There are four or so Greek and Aramaic documents from Bactria, but they only use 'king' to my knowledge. I have no idea what the Indian sources for Menander title him. There's every chance that I've missed a discussion; if a scholarly source can be found I'm happy to include the title here and on Graeco-Bactria. Furius (talk) 18:25, 6 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Replying to a request for a third-party opinion on this issue: I think it's fine to mention previous scholarship, and indeed it would be surprising not to find any of it in articles about classical antiquity, which of course has been studied for a very long time. Even if the position of earlier writing on the topic has been completely and utterly refuted, it's still important to note what was previously thought or considered likely—and then explain why it isn't any longer.  And as I read it, this isn't so much about Tarn being proven wrong about the things he's being cited for, as it is about later scholarship re-evaluating the facts in light of new discoveries and the passage of time (which of course inevitably produces new viewpoints and interpretations).


 * I assume the three quotations above were selected because they were particularly strong examples; but they don't actually say that Tarn "made stuff up". Two of them call his reconstructions "speculative" or "conjectural", while the third vaguely calls it "outdated".  But speculation and conjecture are part of the historian's job, when necessary and important facts are thin on the ground, disputed, confused, or ambiguous in the source material.  And it's truly rare for any historical writing to be altogether free of speculation or conjecture—even the driest of history reflects the opinions and interpretations of its author.  That someone's conjectures may be wrong can be taken for granted; and if they are proven wrong then it is correct to say so; but that is not the same as someone else offering a different opinion and speculating that it is more likely—even if other scholars agree—since any opinion remains conjecture until solid and unimpeachable facts are known.  And in any case, offering speculation or conjecture is not the same thing as "making stuff up", which implies a deliberate falsehood, or the intent to deceive, rather than an educated guess about the truth.


 * The question here is really the way that the material is presented and discussed. And the issue dividing you may be simply resolved by reframing changing and evolving opinions and newly-discovered material as a non-adversarial process.  Instead of presenting it as "Tarn believed this, but he was wrong because 'modern' scholars believe something else" (and I note that scholarship from 1951 isn't really that old in the field of classical scholarship; there remains much good scholarship from the 19th century, and some earlier than that, provided that it's placed in proper context), present it in terms of "Tarn speculated that [...], but to date no evidence to support or refute this hypothesis has been discovered.  Historian [...] offers a different explanation, and suggests that [...] is unlikely because [...]."  And of course if it's multiple writers you can say so, without necessarily implying "mad old bat, ignore", or simply excising Tarn from the article without mentioning anything that he wrote.  Remember, it's generally the job of the scholars to decide about truth, and our job as Wikipedians to report what they say—not to decide whether they're right.


 * TL:DR: of course older scholarship can and should be included as part of historical articles. But it should be presented in context, and in light of the changing state of our knowledge and evolving opinions.  Where opinions have changed significantly over time, that can be fairly indicated in a way that doesn't appear to take sides or seem overly critical of scholarship that is no longer current.  P Aculeius (talk) 19:27, 6 August 2021 (UTC)