Talk:Isauria

[Untitled]
A FEW THINGS - it is marked wrong on the map provided. Isauria, or Rough Cilicia constitutes the western half of the Cilician province presented on the map. It extends south from the Taurus mountain range to the Mediterranean. SECONDLY "The site contains ruins of the town and its fortifications" this is a Roman Provice, with at least 27 known towns (either epigraphically or archaeologically). Each city had its own unique character and some were not fortified at all. This article is confused and needs better, more specific citation.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.235.168.193 (talk) 14:36, 11 April 2011 (UTC)


 * [The Romans] regarded Cilicia Trachea as part of Isauria, which thus extended to the sea...

Which sea? The name would help clarify this sentence a little. -- Sam - - - Cilicia Trachea and Isauria are the same place and had always been regarded as the same place, Cilicia proper and Isauria were only separated for administrative purposes, it didn't change the ethnicity of the people. It would be helpful to clarify the geography of the province to understand the banditry of the Isaurians and the inability of the Romans to control them (i.e. collect taxes).

Paragraph flip
I flipped around the third and fourth paragraphs, so that Perdiccas' siege (which happened centuries before the encounter with the Romans) no longer interrupts the two paragraphs describing the Roman period. It would also be helpful to clean up the geographical references throughout the article. The current information is of little use to anyone except scholars of late-Classical Anatolian geography.

Michael Simone

Mountain Turks!!!
"The region had not been completely subdued until the arrival in the 11th century of the Seljuk Turks whose descendants have now coalesced with the local population and formed a settled people; these are thought to be the ancestors of the Kurds."

The "Great Leader" Atat&uuml;rk was right: the Kurds are "Mountain Turks" -- and the Armenian Genocide never happened!!! What utter nonsense.

Outdated sources
All of the sources mentioning any relationship to modern groups have been printed before 1940 and are outdated. Some of them mention "probably". I have removed them until there are new sources. Note the Sultan and his subjects are from 1897 and followers int he way is from 1934. Also these sources are not specialized towards the specific topic at hand.--Nepaheshgar (talk) 01:39, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Although various ancient Iranic peoples dwelled in large numbers throughout Anatolia, to whom Kurds origins can be traced, however, I do not think there is a clear tie between Kurds and Isaurians. I try to reword the passage you removed; feel free to change or remove it if you see it redundant! Ellipi (talk) 21:41, 31 December 2008 (UTC)