Talk:Seleucus I Nicator

Aldux, There is no evidence whatsoever for your claim of Seleucus having any success against the Mauryas. If anything, the vast majority of historians (your unnamed and questionable sources being the exceptions) advanced the opposite. Ancient Western historians, Justin through Strabo, would've been celebrating this "advance" to Pataliputra. Moreover, Seleucus would not have voluntarily ceded half his empire, especially for 500 elephants (they would've been his anyways according to your notion). There's enough of this philhellenic fantasy floating around on other pages. Please don't add to it. Regards, Devanampriya

Half his empire? Where did that come from?80.217.145.164 16:37, 20 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Is the first image really a bust of Seleucus I Nicator? This image looks like a picture of the same bust which is labeled here as "Bust of Attalus I, circa 200 BCE from [1] ". Paul August ☎ 18:12, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

I've done a bit more research. The image file Image:seleukos_nikator.jpg says: "From http://www.livius.org/l, in the public domain". However following that link gives a different image for Seleucus I Nicator. So, assuming the uploader didn't make a mistake, I'm wondering if the cite originally had this image, found it to be "incorrect" and has since changed it. Paul August ☎ 18:28, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

I asked the uploader of the image about this and he responded:

"I dont now. I took the picture from livius.com. and uploaded last year. I think that it is probably the bust of Attalus I because it is replaced on livius.com. with another picture. I think this picture sould be delated and removed from page Seleucus I Nicator and put another. (sorry for bed english) Boris Živ:

If someone wants to upload the image from the Livius site (assuming there are no copyright problems) we can add that image here. For now I've removed the image from the page and moved one of the first coin image up. Paul August ☎ 22:54, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

Seleucus had three children yet four are named? I would change it but I don't know how.

If you do not know...how could you write this? Anyway, you click on "article" and then "edit" to the right of the place you wish to change, in this case, over Seleukos head (Statue).80.217.145.164 16:37, 20 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

This complaint is correct. Achaios is not attested as a son of Seleukos and probably wasn't. The families were certainly closely related, but Achaios was more likely a younger brother or first cousin..203.192.77.228 (talk) 23:18, 1 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

What is the evidence for the birthdate of Antiochus in the following sentence?

• Seleucus also took his future wife, the Persian princess Apama (daughter of Spitamenes), with him into India as his mistress, where she gave birth to his bastard eldest son and successor Antiochus I Soter (325 BC). At the great marriage ceremony at Susa in the spring of 324 BC, Seleucus formally married Apama, and she later bore him at least two legitimate daughters, Laodice, Apama and a son Achaeus.

Yet at Antiochus I Soter we are told his birthdate is unknown. The point in the quoted section seems to be to make a fuss over legitimacy, but I don't yet see where there are grounds for this. Therefore I have placed a "citation needed" against the word bastard. Andrew Dalby 15:26, 26 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

What was his religion? I think it must be added. Bladesmulti (talk) 03:48, 23 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

"A cult of personality formed around the later members of the Seleucid dynasty and Seleucus was later worshipped as a son of god." Which one? JanderVK (talk) 21:13, 26 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

Pls, let me do it — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stavfrombc (talk • contribs) 15:33, 22 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

This is not in keeping with WP:ERA (no topic-related reason given, no benefit to readers, article seems to be consistent and long-standing in BC style). DMacks (talk) 17:25, 22 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

As above. I prefer BCE and if given adequate reasons would support it, but I see no reasons. Doug Weller talk 17:40, 22 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

Same here. I usually use BCE when creating an article, but the proposed change is inconsistent with our guidelines. Khruner (talk) 17:50, 22 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Hypaspist.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:52, 2 August 2019 (UTC)Reply

is basically the same as what's parked at Wiktionary but both are unsourced and, frankly, dubious. (a) This guy doesn't come up a lot in conversation and English (mis)pronunciation is going to be whatever feels natural to native speakers, which at least in my neck of the woods is going to involve the vowel /ɛ/ at some point. If there's no solid agreement or obvious mispronunciation, we don't need to list the IPA here at all. (b) If there's actually an accepted scholarly pronunciation, fine, provide it and source it. If there isn't, remove it from the lead (WP:NOTDICT) and we can start laundry listing variants at Wiktionary. (c) The language mess in the lead is actually very well formatted, but it's still a mess. The article would be better served by shunting most of it down to a #Name or #Names section and only leaving the Greek and its transliteration in the lead sentence. — LlywelynII 20:12, 12 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Here's one historical pron source that disagrees with the sound and stress of what's provided here. Might be an issue with many more people saying the name of the dynasty, where the stress shifts back. Doesn't change that plenty of people won't use a schwa here. (Nor should they, afaict.) First Google Books result with a pron is bizarre; second is semiclassical; but neither's what's here. — LlywelynII 20:21, 12 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

I'd remove the IPA pronunciation as unsourced. The sources that you've found in your second comment suggest to me that there is no standard pronunciation. Once that's gone, I don't think the language mess is long enough to justify a separate "Name" section. Furius (talk) 03:54, 14 February 2024 (UTC)Reply