Jump to content

Talk:Oshin of Lampron

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

Ganja

MarshallBagramyan, the absurdity is using the name which we only come across in Armenian-language sources in an English-language encyclopædia. Unlike 'Ganja', 'Gandzak' was never this city's official name. If it had been, we could have used it to denote the timeframe when the city actually went under this name (e.g. "Immanuel Kant was born in Königsberg", not "...in Kaliningrad"), but the fact is that Ganja has never been part of an Armenian entity and never bore a universally-accepted Armenian name. You can use 'Gandzak' in hy:wiki, no problem. But not here. Parishan (talk) 03:06, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with that. The city was never called Gandzak in its entire history. Grandmaster 05:53, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is ridiculous, that they are biased or not, medieval writtings mention it as Gandzak, which means that this way of calling it was not modern, period. Ionidasz (talk) 15:18, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Certain writings from before the twentieth century mention Yerevan by its Azeri name Iravan. Would you be happy with the use of the latter toponym throughout Wikipedia? I mean, Joseph Emin used it in 1792, so did William Ouseley around the same time and referring to an earlier work from the 1600s by Sadik Isfahani, who also called it Iravan, so personally I do not see a problem, do you? Especially given that Yerevan was once part of an Azeri political establishment, but Ganja was never part of Armenia. Parishan (talk) 22:14, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is no such thing as an Azeri word for Yerevan, it was a not so perfect iteration of the Perso-Arabic Irwan or Erwan. In those languages the way the w is rendered is impossible to obtain the way it is spelled unless we use the international code used by liguists. The native Kurds of Armenia still pronounce it this way. Azeri political establishment LOL! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ionidasz (talk • contribs) 18:01, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is a load OR that I will not bother even commenting on. You have already demonstrated your outstanding linguistics skills on Talk:Kochari. Parishan (talk) 03:17, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Next time I would have to answer..., I'll do as you do. Ionidasz (talk) 13:16, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The first Azeri political establishment along with the Azeri nation itself was formed in 1918.-- Ευπάτωρ Talk!! 13:42, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nation-building is different from ethnic group formation. Parishan (talk) 03:17, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That thesis holds water if we believe in the version that the city was founded in the 9th century, if it was founded in the 5th as several sources suggest than cearly it was founded under Armenian rule. Not to mention that we have third party sources referring to the city of Gandzak as being within "eastern Armenia" even in the 6th century. [1]-- Ευπάτωρ Talk!! 14:49, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Eastern Armenia" was not a political concept at the time, and politically Armenia had nothing to do with the site of Ganja after 387. The word Dalmatia is still used to denote coastal regions of Croatia, but that does not mean that it is rational using the Dalmatian toponym for Split (Spalatro) when talking about it in, say, the twentieth-century context. Parishan (talk) 22:14, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gandzak was part of the Kingdom of Armenia until 428. Discussion of the fully Armenian ruled Gandzak and the surrounding regions of the region from 428 on under nominal Sassanid suzerainty is irrelvant.-- Ευπάτωρ Talk!! 13:42, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
LOL! Do what you preach! :) and stop pushing the term Azeri down to our throat when such an identity did not exist. Ionidasz (talk) 20:26, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It has never been part of Armenia or Armenian-ruled in its history. Most historians agree that city was founded in the ninth century, regardless of what POV-pushing historians from Armenia have to say about this. And even if it had been part of Armenia in some way or another, that was not when Oshin lived, so the Armenian name in this article is irrelevant. Parishan (talk) 03:17, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Even if it was founded in the 5th century, Iranica says that it was founded as Ganja, a Persian city, and not Gandzak. Armenia did not exist as a state in the fifth century. Gandzak is corrupted Persian Ganja. Why using non-existent names? Grandmaster 09:54, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is what Iranica says: The Persian name Ganja/Ganza (<ganj “treasure, treasury”; see MacKenzie, p. 35) points, however, to there having existed a much older, pre-Islamic town there. [2] Iranica talks about Persian Ganja/Ganza, and not Gandzak. However, it is just a theory, according to prevailing scholarly point of view, the city was founded by Arabs in the 9th century. Grandmaster 09:58, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's not a Persian name, it is Indo-European, it means the same in Armenian also is several Kurdish dialects. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ionidasz (talk • contribs) 13:17, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
According to Iranica, it is Persian. Grandmaster 20:45, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, as Parishan correctly noted above, Oshin lived in the 11th century. Ganja was without any doubt a Muslim city at that time, and could not have had any name other than Ganja. Same as for the most of the 19th century it was Elisabethpol within the Russian empire. Grandmaster 12:05, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Founder of the House of Lampron?

We've got 2 dates for it, 1072 and 1226 (and 2 founders". The 1072 comes from Robinson, Francis; P. C. Hughes (1969). "Lampron: Castle of Armenian Cilicia". Anatolian Studies. British Institute at Ankara. 19: 183–207. doi:10.2307/3642624. JSTOR 3642624. That says:

" There is some discussion as to who, and how powerful, the first baron of Lampron was. Some historians consider that Oshin of Lampron was the same man as the general Aspietes whose exploits Anna Comnena both eulogises and condemns.8 Oshin we find in 1o97 taking advantage of the Turkish preoccupation with the advance of the First Crusade to make a daring sally out of the mountains and capture part of Adana, but as soon as Tancred appeared he lost heart and scuttled back to his fortress.9 Later he is mentioned with his brother Pazouni and the Roupenid Constantine as sending the Frankish generals all the provisions they needed.10 Aspietes, on the other hand, was grand enough to be created stratopedarch of all Cilicia by the Emperor Alexius in order to fend off the threat from Tancred in I Io8-9. His record was not good. He debauched himself in Mamistra for several months and fled as soon as fighting became imminent leaving the key castle of the Cilician Plain in Tancred's hands." Laurent has convincingly shown that it is both unlikely that the early career of Aspietes can be identified as that of Oshin and that we really do not know enough of the latter to speak with any certainty.12 Therefore, it seems more probable that the holders of Lampron had not gained the stature which Aspietes' command implies, but were still petty barons, happy to rely on the strength of their castle, and unlikely candidates for the control of all "

That doesn't back the claim the House was founded in 1072. Doug Weller talk 18:52, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Oshin_of_Lampron&oldid=1207417058"