Talk:Bahram Chobin

Sad

It's sad to see such lies written here, about one of the greatest heros in persian history. Chosroe betrayed his country by fleeing to Byzantine and coming back with an Byzantine army, fighting with Persians. Reason why Bahram overthrew chosroe is that, after Bahram defeated the turks, chosroe heard a lie that bahram had kept all the spoils for himself, then sending him a letter saying: you are not a man, you are a woman and should dress like one. Bahram did so to prove for his generals what kind of man chosroe is, and the whole persian army stood beside him to overthrow chosroe. The acts of chosroe is one of the reasons sassanid empire collapsed within, to be defeated by the arabs not long after. In the future this information will be added to the article along with source. --Spahbod 11:26, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Societal Framework

Chosroe, which is certainly not a favored king as far as I am concerned, was the Shahanshah of Iran for better or worse; as a Muslim, I particularly find his declaration in his final days of being "God". (I have to find references to this.) So this should not be read as a defense of Chosroe, as a person or personality.

That said, the general in question mutinied against his sovereign. One only needs to read the (mythical) accounts of Rostam and his dealings with various Kings of Iran to be reminded of the paramount value of fidelity to the Sovereign, as a social-institutional matter, to ancient Iranians. One could easily argue that by his act of hubris, he affected the weakening of the Iranian state, both institutionally and politically, which had to resort to foreign help to aid against its own rebellious general and the army under his command.

Finally, and I know torsh khaahee kard but its OK, the system was already corrupted and to pin the demise of the Sassanian Empire on Chosroe is somewhat disingenuous. There are a few articles on Mani and Mazdak that I need to dig up (google for it) that make a case for a longstanding undercurrent of illegitimacy of the Sassanian dynasty (which was a Theocracy, btw.). Even in Shahnameh, we find direct discussion of these topics: (1) the notion of Sassaan being a shepherd of loyal lineage; (2) the notion of his son being legitimate and divinely appointed as illustrated by the "eagle" of Farr that supposedly followed him and his bride as they escaped her father, and finally (3) the claims made by Bahram Chobin to being of Kiani lineage, and his pretensions to loyalty. (Review Ferdowsee's treatment of Chobin in dealing with the Turk Prince he defeated, for example.) Bahram Chobin's arguments with his sister/wife over these pretensions are a key feature of this story, and well worth reviewing. -- Joubin <g>

need to discuss his sister and his marriage to her

There is a great deal missing from this page and it can be greatly expanded. Also, I suggest a 3 part structure: I)Intro II) Historical Chobin III) Mythical Chobin (mainly in ref. to Shahnameh.)

Requested move 25 March 2017

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved due to lack of opposition — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:16, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

---

Bahrām Chōbin → Bahram Chobin – Due to same reason that all the other Sasanian articles don't have these weird alphabets such as ō and ā. HistoryofIran (talk) 12:34, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

"Characters not on a standard keyboard (use redirects): Sometimes the most appropriate title contains diacritics (accent marks), dashes, or other letters and characters not found on most English-language keyboards. This can make it difficult to navigate to the article directly. In such cases, provide redirects from versions of the title that use only standard keyboard characters. (Similarly, in cases where it is determined that the most appropriate title is one that omits diacritics, dashes, and other letters not found on most English-language keyboards, provide redirects from versions of the title that contain them.)" (WP:TSC) There's no need for a move FlagFlayer (talk) 18:39, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

It's still an annoying detail. Again, I'm gonna use the 'no other articles has it card'. It's more practical if it got changed to a normal version. There is indeed need for a move. --HistoryofIran (talk) 18:49, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

It is kinda odd considering all the other related articles don't use accent marks. It's not a necessary to move the article, but it would be more pleasing and would make more common sense, so if it is possible to move the article then I support it fully. The problem is that there just isn't any policy dictating the article needs to be moved, I'm just pointing that out.

Sorry if I came out as rude. FlagFlayer (talk) 17:22, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

• Comment: I'm not really an expert on this subject (came here because it was tagged on Classical Greece and Rome's list), but I am pretty thoroughly versed in English language conventions. Until quite recently, I believe macrons were used to indicate long vowels chiefly in dictionaries and grammar books in which the pronunciation of the name was being indicated. And even in dictionaries, the pronunciation would only be given once, then normal text without macrons used for the body (if the words were repeated). Macrons weren't regarded as accent marks, in that they weren't an inherent part of the spelling of a word, but were only guides for pronunciation by persons likely to be unfamiliar with the word. Only in recent years have macrons appeared in some romanizations of names in foreign languages outside of grammar books, and I suspect confusion between accent and pronunciation marks is at fault.

In this case, we're dealing with a name normally written in a script other than Latin/Roman, which would keep most readers of English Wikipedia from being able to read it at all. Naturally it's rendered in the Latin alphabet, and if a pronunciation guide is needed, macrons would be useful; but not being normal accent marks in English, the macrons shouldn't be included except in that guide. They should not appear in either the article title, or the body of the article, except once when giving the pronunciation. And even that probably isn't necessary, since in ordinary rules of English pronunciation the 'o' would already be long, and the 'a' would probably be given a 'continental' pronunciation as it appears in a non-English word. The stress on the first name is not apparent in this case, but most English pronunciation guides indicate stress in ways other than by adding macrons. So my impression is that the macrons should go, and pronunciation, if given, indicated in another way in the lead sentence. P Aculeius (talk) 12:24, 3 April 2017 (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.

Article

Still a lot left for the article to be "complete". A religion section is missing, and the rebellion, reign and legacy sections need expanding. --HistoryofIran (talk) 02:34, 11 February 2019 (UTC)