Talk:Darius III

Darius the person and the ruler

There is alot of info in this article about Darius and the conflicts he had to deal with. But it doesn't really say anything about his rule. Was he a just ruler? Did he try to clean up the corruption in his new empire or was he corrupt as well? Perhaps a little bit more should be added along those lines.

Fred26 09:08, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

The article offers too many subjective opinions even for Wikipedia. The tone of the article ought to be factual. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.145.176.99 (talk) 14:46, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Contradictions

The article says Bagoas was chiliarch. But that was, according to wikipedia a Greek office, not a Persian one. Furthermore, Bagoas was, per this article, killed by Darius. However the end of the first section says that he was not killed by Darius but taken by Alexander. Contradiction. --Blue Tie 02:57, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Apparently, the title of chiliarch was directly imported by the greeks, and would be the same as a persian "hazarapatish" (which I think is the same as Great Vizier). As long as this is not exactly contradictory, since both ranks are the same just in different places, it would be better to change the chiliarch term for one of both hazarapatish or great vizier. Regarding the Bagoas issue, Great Vizier Bagoas and the eunuch Bagoas are two different persons, hence no contradiction there. Charles Dexter Ward 10:42, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I have proceeded to apply to aforementioned changes and remove the contradict tag. Please review the results. Charles Dexter Ward 13:06, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Darius on the battlefield

In article

In 333 BC Darius himself took the field against the Macedonian king, but his much larger army was outflanked and defeated at the Battle of Issus and Darius was forced to flee, leaving behind his chariot, his camp, and his family, all of which were captured by Alexander.

I remember reading somewhere that Darius had his lead military commander executed which forced him to take the field. He was executed because they disagreed on how to deal with Alexander. Any of that sound legit? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.209.246.97 (talk) 02:07, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

Darius III Codomannus → Darius III — A user moved without any discussion the page from "Darius III of Persia" to "Darius III Codomannus" with edit summary "Follow usage of reliable sources". This is unacceptable because 1. the page was not moved with proper discussion based on how to do potentially problematic moves, 2. The reason "Follow usage of reliable sources" is a falsification: the Encyclopaedia Britannica uses Darius III, The Cambridge History of Iran also uses Darius III and of course Encyclopaedia Iranica too. Therefore "the most reliable sources in History of Iran" use Darius III. Xashaiar (talk) 12:28, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Not convinced. Our general practice with the kings of the ancient world is to include name, number, and epithet, as with Ptolemy III Euergetes, although Ptolemy III is as unique as Darius III; the principal reason for having article titles at all is to tell as many readers as possible they are in the right place. In this case, readers who come here from the thousand books which call him "Darius III Codomannus" or from the thousands which call him Darius Codomannus are both served; so is anybody who knows him as Darius III. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:32, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Support a move back to 'Darius III'. The move towards 'Darius III Codomannus' was not requested, debated, or agreed upon. AFAIK 'Darius III' is the common English name (as WP:Commonname) and the following seems to confirm this: see here. Flamarande (talk) 02:02, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Comment I support moving to Darius III of Persia, which already redirects here, and is consistent with Darius I of Persia. PatGallacher (talk) 22:10, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I do not regard Darius I of Persia as a good idea either; he is primarily known (and is primary usage for) simple Darius. But that would be a multimove request, to be proposed after this one. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:29, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Our basic starting point is WP:NCROY, which in this case means "Darius III of Persia", which should be followed in the absence of a good reason to the contrary. I see no mention of any general practice in relation to the ancient world, I think the Ptolemys may have gone off at a tangent. I do not believe the name Codomannus is in widespread use, I do have some basic knowledge of ancient history and I had never heard of it. PatGallacher (talk) 16:35, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

WP:NCROY says, as it did the last time you tried to invoke it beyond its range, These following conventions apply to European monarchs since the fall of the Western Roman Empire (but not to the Byzantine Emperors), because they share much the same stock of names. Neither the condition nor the reason for it apply to the Persian Empire. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:28, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

True, but the crucual point is "they share much the same stock of names". It also says that this convention may be applied to cultures where monarchs of different countries share the same stock of names e.g. the Muslim world. We have Darius of Pontus, we need to disambiguate him from the Persian monarchs. I also think Darius III of Persia is more easily recognisable to the general reader. PatGallacher (talk) 11:06, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

• I am neutral on this move; both names are acceptable to me. I have proposed a move at Talk:Darius I of Persia#Requested_move that commenters here may be interested in. —Srnec (talk) 23:35, 15 March 2011 (UTC)