Talk:Tomyris

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Tahmirih?[edit]

The source for the name's etymology states it was Tahm-Rayiš and someone changed it to Tahmirih without providing any source for this. It needs to be corrected. 102.115.150.244 (talk) 08:32, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It was changed[1] by @Ogress:. --Wario-Man (talk) 08:57, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I can see that. And that new etymology added still contradicts the source linked and has no other valid source to back it up. 102.116.105.105 (talk) 21:24, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 17 February 2021[edit]

The word "Tomyris" is directly related with "Temir/Demir" in all modern and historical Turkic languages and is directly connected with Tomyris' Turkic/Scythian roots. Please add that info. 212.252.139.110 (talk) 22:20, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, this is historical revisionism, something this article is constantly a target of, hence why it got protected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HistoryofIran (talk • contribs) 22:35, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Note: Please remember to set the edit request template's answer parameter to yes when you have answered an edit request. Regards, DesertPipeline (talk) 11:36, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

History revision[edit]

Your history revision based on the delusional premise of saying and even mentioning "azeris" dont prove the Tomyris, who ruled over "Iranian Sakas" was "a turkic queen because we found this on my dictionary"

Tomyris and the land she ruled back at that time was in fact inhabited by east iranians and left mostly intact even after the turkic invasions until the destruction of those cities and states under the hands of mongols and tatars which eventually lead to the creation of the mordern turkic states of "turkemenistan, uzbekistan" and others

(Which also makes me want to mention about how turks call other persians turks, despite the fact that there is no persian in the mordern age with a turkic name and many turks with persian names)

The prove of what i said above is the fact that there is no ancient city create in central asia that has turkic names and if turks were at such large numbers and did inhabit those areas, why did they all eventually became persianised?

Why is it only after the mongol invasions that name of "bukhara" became assiociated with turks? And even Turan which is mentioned in the persian epic as one of the sons of feraydun as tur? 2A02:CE0:2000:17D5:98DD:7538:ABBA:FCFC (talk) 14:12, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@IP; Please take a deep breath for a second and look who actually reverted you (yours truly). You're clearly confusing me with one or multiple people. Nowhere does this article state that Tomyris was a Turk. What you're doing is overkill, it's already clear enough that she was an Iranian Massagetae, you dont have to shove it down the readers throats. --HistoryofIran (talk) 15:09, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Its not overkill to clearify the identity of the queen, every historical character has their ethnicity mentioned, its not overkill to say who she was and from she was especially when turks make fake documentary claiming her to be otherwise.
It needs to be clear, just like how cyrus the greats page and baburs page mention how one was a persian and the other turko mogolic. 2A02:CE0:2000:17D5:98DD:7538:ABBA:FCFC (talk) 15:18, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Except the lede of Cyrus the Great doesn't say that he was Persian in a throat-shoving way, since its already pretty obvious, just like it is that Tomyris was Massagatean. Image saying in the lede of Cyrus the Great "was the Persian founder of the Achaemenid Empire, the first Persian empire." Can you see how that silly that sounds? That's the exact same thing you've done in this article. Also, refer someone as "Turk" (or any other ethnicity in such a negative way) instead of their username [2], and I won't hestitate to report you for your behaviour. --HistoryofIran (talk) 16:21, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@2A02:CE0:2000:17D5:98DD:7538:ABBA:FCFC: Are you going to reply? You sure were fast in reverting. --HistoryofIran (talk) 15:41, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Was she even real?[edit]

Other than Herodotus's lavish account in order to give Cyrus a theatrical death, what other historicity that wasn't copied off of Herodotus's original account do we have? We have, I believe, four other accounts pertaining to Cyrus's death?

This article seems to regard her as factually existing.

She has no beginning other than being a foil to Cyrus and no aftermath. You'd imagine a figure like this would have other corroborating sources. Everything is "unknown" about her but yet Herodotus writes the dialogue and exchanges between these characters as if he were there.

I think the article needs to present itself similar to Achille's article. It may be considered mythology or legend, or perhaps there was a historical personality that was or inspired the character, similar to how the Amazons were invented through Scythian transfer. 142.198.101.242 (talk) 21:48, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, given the date and context, I wouldn't "imagine a figure like this would have other corroborating sources". What other literary sources do we have for this region at the time? Johnbod (talk) 21:54, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For other persons how about Hammurabi? Ashurbanipal? Ramses? Cyrus? Figures even older than the Classical period have accounts and we can attest to their existence through other histography from both foreign and domestic attestations.
I don't really get what you're trying to say. Tomyris has literally one source, and it's foreign and not even a contemporary. Are there any coins? Stone reliefs? I'm not specifically looking for another text, although one would be welcome, but anything to corroborate this figure's existence. At least her potential successor has a relief on his page to attest to an existence corroborated by another group, but even that page isn't sure of it. 142.198.101.242 (talk) 01:47, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Further, I do think the killing of a figure like Cyrus by Tomyris would have had other authors like Xenophon, Ctesias or Berossus attest to it. They don't.
Tomyris dies when Cyrus dies and isn't thought of again until the Renaissance. She exists in Herodotus's sole account, Arrian says nothing of a beheading when Alexander sees his tomb, not even the Persians comment on it when Xerxes has an account of his death by his son in Cuneiform.
No account from the Scythians, Massagetae, Saka, etc. Nothing to corroborate the story, but somehow this seems to be taken at face value. 142.198.101.242 (talk) 02:05, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well I wouldn't exactly say that, but it seems to be taken as at least a possibility by historians. Ctesias is a problem, I admit. Coins & inscriptions are not to be expected from this region at the time. Johnbod (talk) 02:09, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I meant anything from either Scythian or foreign artisans, gold, textiles, carpets etc. I don't think they really created objects with named persons on them much however, so I don't know.
I'm not arguing that historians consider it a possibility, sure. I just think the Tomyris article is written too much like someone who absolutely existed. I think the article as of now is a bit misleading, it just reads far too definitively. It should remark on some uncertainty. 142.198.101.242 (talk) 03:49, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is fair to acknowledge that Tomyris is known only from Herodotus - the lead sort of does this at the moment, but it could be clearer about it. The point about Ctesias is rather shoe-horned in - it's not "aftermath," but I'm not sure how to solve this. A lot of the scholarship on Herodotus analyses the death of Cyrus in literary ways (foreshadowing Xerxes' defeat), which dodge the question of historicity; it would be good to have a section on "Role in Herodotus" or whatever.
At the same time, she and her son have actual Saka names and Herodotus didn't speak Sakan, so he can't have invented her. Furius (talk) 08:55, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
How about this? I don't think i can go further without good sources. Of course Ctesias was attached to the Persian court, which may explain his omission of humiliating facts for them. Johnbod (talk) 15:35, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think that's a great improvement. The other stuff I mentioned, I have in mind to do myself, although not in the immediate future. Furius (talk) 18:56, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fair improvement. Thanks! 142.198.101.242 (talk) 21:20, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tomyris differs from Hammurabi, Ashurbanipal, Ramses, and Cyrus mentioned above in that they ruled over Egypt or areas in Mesopotamia -- areas with long-established literacy. Tomyris ruled over illiterate peoples who were not Fertile Crescent adjacent, so the expectation of written records is much less. AnonMoos (talk) 08:43, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Added image from National Trust[edit]

Hello! I added an image from the National Trust as part of this pilot, more images are here Lajmmoore (talk) 18:54, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tomyris&oldid=1208440452"