Talk:Sasanian conquest of Jerusalem

Split
Apparently, this article is a mix of July 614 events (when the Persian Army laid siege on Jerusalem and took it with little resistance) and the Christian rebellion several months later, when Christians revolted against the newly installed Jewish governor in Jerusalem, killed him, his council and a bloody unrest followed among Jews and Christians, resulting in slaughter and flight of the remaining Jerusalemite Jews. In response Persian contingent was brought from Caesarea reinforced by Jewish rebels and after a bloody battle they took Jerusalem. After the capture, the Jews unleashed a revenge by destroying Churches and massacring the Christians. I hence propose this article be split into Siege of Jerusalem (July 614) and Christian rebellion in Palaestina (614).Greyshark09 (talk) 11:24, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Withdrawn.GreyShark (dibra) 09:02, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Plans and problems
I have been searching through the literature and there exist significant amount of secondary sources with analysis. I see four problems currently.

1: There is too much overlap currently between the following articles. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_revolt_against_Heraclius http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Jerusalem_(614) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sasanian-Jewish_commonwealth

2: Ben Abrahamson relies too directly on primary sources. He also adds his own interpretation and is not a historian.

3: The primary sources disagree sometimes even with themselves. The articles rely on a single primary source Antiochus' account while ignoring other primary sources like Sebeos. I plan to add a brief summary of each missing primary source to Siege of Jerusalem 614. Sebeos, Dionysius and the Sefer Zerubbabel including references to secondary sources.

4: The actual analysis I plan to rewrite using secondary sources. I have found several good ones.

This may take a while. The basic chronology and outline are currently correct.

Jonney2000 (talk) 22:30, 17 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I've argued before that Abrahamson's article fails to meet WP:RS and so should not be cited. I still believe that.  Keep up the good work. Zerotalk 22:37, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Ok so I have been working on this some more. Abrahamson’s account has a lot of problems.
1: Nehemiah ben Hushiel was probably not an exilarch the Sefer Zerubbabel calls him the Messiah ben Joseph which kind of contradicts that he was of the line of David.

2: The battle of the golden gate in 619 the only evidence Abrahamson’s has is James Fleming falling into a Muslim graveyard sees a buried ancient gate and skeletal remains. Which is not surprising seen as this was a graveyard. Sefer Zerubavel says five years hence the 619 date. http://www.generationword.com/jerusalem101/5-gates-today.html#golden

3: The other exilarchs Heman I = Abdallah ibn Saba, Yakub of Syria = Ka'b al-Ahbar and Hanamel = Salmaan Farsi it is all guess work at best.

4: Abrahamson is not a historian he wrote his summary to improve relations between Jews and Muslims. Some parts of his work are right but he often goes into flights of fancy especially about the exilarchs.

5: It’s not clear that a Jewish army was raised in Persia, Jewish / Persia relations where actually kind of poor because the exilarchs keep revolting.

6: It’s not clear that a Jewish-Sasanian commonwealth existed. After Nehemiah ben Hushiel was killed order may not have even been restored in Jerusalem until mid-616.

After I finish here I plan to work on the following articles Siege of Caesarea (614), Jewish revolt against Heraclius the article Jewish-Sasanian commonwealth should probably be deleted at some point since it’s probably fictional. Content should be moved into Jewish revolt against Heraclius Jonney2000 (talk) 02:19, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Proposed title change
I propose changing the title of this article to.

Siege and occupation of Jerusalem (614-630)

Jonney2000 (talk) 06:02, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Disagree - we don't have a precise date for the end of Sasanian rule: it is either 617, 625 or 628.GreyShark (dibra) 09:02, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I meanwhile change it to Sasanian conquest of Jerusalem without years and removing "occupation" as the conquest didn't involve a military rule, but rather autonomous rule of first Jews and later Christians.GreyShark (dibra) 09:03, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

The True Cross? Deletion?
It appears to me that there are no reliable sources by which one could establish that someone took charge of the cross on which Christ was crucified on some date. Neither does it appear to me that there are reliable sources which could verify a chain of custody to the time which this article addresses. Is this not mythological or legendary statements about some relic, about which there is no way to verify claims? I suggest that the "True Cross" material be edited to say something like: "There was at the time a relic considered to the the "True Cross," and it was moved about being the subject of disputed ownership." Or perhaps the simple addition of the word "alleged" before "True Cross" would fix this problem. (AltheaCase (talk) 00:27, 6 November 2023 (UTC))
 * The True Cross does not describe the cross of Jesus. It describes a relic supposedly discovered by the empress Helena in the late 320s. The relevant article traces its history from the 4th century until the early 13th century, when it disappears from the historical record. Dimadick (talk) 14:00, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

A city is captured, only a country is conquered, right?
Mandatory rule in English? If so: Sasanian capture of Jerusalem. I'll create a redirect. I'm aware this makes life harder when/if the art. is renamed (moved), but that's all I can do for now. Arminden (talk) 23:52, 10 December 2023 (UTC)