Talk:Ankhwennefer (pharaoh)
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Merge
editYou should merge them, they're the same article.Ericl 18:17, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Per sources, he was a pharaoh
edit@User23242343: Just as a note, Ankhwennefer and Horwennefer are titled pharaohs by many modern academics, including Toby Wilkinson, John D. Grainger, Günther Hölbl, Joyce Tyldesley, and Francis Breyer. Wikipedia follows the sources, and the sources call them pharaohs. The claim that they were not considered phararohs in "contemporary politics" is also nonsense; their subjects clearly called them pharaohs, as evidenced by surviving ancient sources. Applodion (talk) 12:42, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
- @Applodion: The Ptolemaic Kingdom was the legal successor of Ancient Egypt and Ptolemaic rulers were the rightful pharaohs. The majority of scholarly sources refer to Ankhwennefer as a person who claimed the title and who was referred to as pharaoh by his own subjects; his claims were neither recognized by the Ptolemaic Kingdom nor by Rome nor by any other contemporary state. My suggested infobox edit mentions him as a claimed pharaoh and mentions the territory that he actually ruled. The article body can then elaborate in detail his claims, how it actually was and what sources say. However, the infobox is here to summarise general information and not explain every detail. Anyways, I’m open to alternative suggestions. User23242343 (talk) 13:12, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
- @User23242343: "Ptolemaic Kingdom was the legal successor" Umh, no, it wasn't. There was no such thing as a "legal successor" in this period. The Ptolemies were basically a warlord clan who usurped the title of pharaoh. They had just about as much claim to the title as any Egyptian peasant. The only difference between Ankhwennefer and the Ptolemies in this regard is the fact that Ankhwennefer lost the rebellion.
"his claims were neither recognized by the Ptolemaic Kingdom nor by Rome nor by any other contemporary state" Where is your source for this claim? We have basically no evidence for how any outside power -be they Romans, Seleucids or others- treated Ankhwennefer. In fact, the one faction for whom we have at least some evidence for diplomatic contact, the Nubians, suggests that Ankhwennefer was treated as an independent ruler.
Either way, the "majority of scholarly sources" (as I mentioned above) actually do call Ankhwennefer a pharaoh, so we follow their example. Applodion (talk) 13:28, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
- @User23242343: "Ptolemaic Kingdom was the legal successor" Umh, no, it wasn't. There was no such thing as a "legal successor" in this period. The Ptolemies were basically a warlord clan who usurped the title of pharaoh. They had just about as much claim to the title as any Egyptian peasant. The only difference between Ankhwennefer and the Ptolemies in this regard is the fact that Ankhwennefer lost the rebellion.