Talk:Nebuchadnezzar III

Shah Azizur Rahman MP
March 16, 1946 March 16, 1946 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.149.27.215 (talk) 13:58, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 21 December 2019

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: no consensus to move the page to the proposed title at this time, per discussions at Talk:Nebuchadnezzar I and Talk:Nebuchadnezzar II. If revisiting this in the future, please use the procedure shown at Requested moves and note Correct; showing a preponderance of use in Reliable sources would likely be necessary in order to gain consensus for this sort of change in the face of split usage. Dekimasu よ! 05:17, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Nebuchadnezzar III → Nebuchadrezzar III – The correct spelling is Nebuchadrezzar; the second n is an error which crept into the Bible (which uses both spellings). There is a source for this in the article. (This has been discussed before here.) For consistency I suggest discussing the proposal at Talk:Nebuchadnezzar_II. Richard75 (talk) 16:01, 21 December 2019 (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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Bardiya "widely assumed to have been an impostor"
That 'Bardiya' was actually an impostor named Gaumata is the "official" version created by Darius. This seems indeed to have been accepted quite uncritically in antiquity. But as far as I am aware many (most?) modern authors tend to treat this version of events as complete bogus and to believe that Bardiya was indeed Bardiya. Anyway, the author that was cited for the claim that Bardiya is "widely assumed to have been an impostor" actually writes the contrary on p. 198:
 * I hold the opinion, for various reasons that I do not want to list here, that Bardiya/ Gaumata was Cambyses’ brother who was killed by Darius and his fellow-conspirators (https://www.academia.edu/4379300/Medes_Scythians_and_Persians_The_Rise_of_Darius_in_a_North_South_Perspective).

The editor of the article seems to have been confused by another person who (according to Darius?) claimed to be Bardiya. Vogelsang writes on p.202
 * Vahyazdata claimed to be the real Bardiya, the son of Cyrus (DB, paragraphs 40-48). Leaving aside the unlikely possibility that he really was Cyrus’ son, it may safely be assumed that he adopted Bardiya’s name in order to support his imperial claims..

So Vogelsang claims that Bardiya/Gaumata (the predecessor of Darius) was actually Bardiya, while Bardiya/Vahyazdata (some Persian noble who rebelled against Darius) was actually an impostor. Given that Vahyazdata does not seem relevant here and that the claim that Bardiya was an impostor is widely considered doubtful today, I have removed the phrase. Yaan (talk) 00:39, 15 October 2020 (UTC)


 * On further reading, another sentence on Vogelsang p.202 may imply that Bardiya was widely seen as an impostor towards the end of his reign or after the end of his reign.
 * In other words, at that time it must have been widely accepted, at least in the area where Vahyazdata started his rebellion, that King Bardiya/ Gaumata was (or had been) an impersonator. This means that some time before the start of Vahyazdata’s rebellion rumours must have circulated saying that the King was not the man he proclaimed to be. In view of the military activities of Vahyazdata (see above), it seems highly likely that these rumours were spread while King Bardiya was still alive.
 * So it might be possible to put something like "widely assumed to have been an impostor at that time" back into the article if someone thinks that is important. Yaan (talk) 00:46, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Yep, most scholars these days agree that Bardiya was not an impostor, and that Darius was ironically the real usurper in this event. --HistoryofIran (talk) 00:55, 15 October 2020 (UTC)