Talk:Chosroid dynasty

Toumanoff as a reliable source

From my dispute with Christopher Buyers (the owner of the Royal Ark) four years ago:

As I understand, a standart Western reference for Caucasian families is Toumanoff, a collector of genealogical fantasies and an enemy of any serious research. You may take a look at the Table 41 of 'Les dynasties de la Caucasie chretienne' to assess the quality of his information. Toumanoff represents there twelve consecutive generations in a span of 100 years without any trace of doubt. His detailed account of the early kings of Iberia and their descent from Achaemenids is perhaps the most shameless genealogical falsification since that abbot who proclaimed Clovis a descendant of Emperor Claudius.[1]

These concerns are still valid. --Ghirla^-трёп- 21:17, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. The first citation from a work of Toumanoff explicitly mentions that it's his opinion in the main text, without arguing for or against its validity. While it could be expanded, there'd need to be dissenting views in the literature to warrant a rebuttal. This only leaves the first sentence of the ==Early Chosroids== section needing a less controversial source. GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 08:43, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

While I agree that Toumanoff’s assertions are sometimes premature or even dubious, we cannot dismiss the author just because one of the fellow Wikipedians self-confidently considers him "a collector of genealogical fantasies and an enemy of any serious research". Here’s the quote from the most prolific living Western scholar of medieval Caucasia who is, AFAIK, fluent in Russian and Georgia, and frequently refers to the historians from the former Soviet Union:

Toumanoff’s meticulous, well-documented publications are grounded first and foremost upon the total contemporary record. Yet, as is especially evident in his landmark Studies in Christian Caucasian History (1963), he drank plentifully from the fount of scholarship and engaged the researches of the specialists singled out here in addition to many others. The genius of Toumanoff was his adeptness at blending synthesis with his own original contributions while never losing sight of contemporary sources, both indigenous and foreign. Though he was not infallible, any serious investigation of pre-modern Caucasia must come to terms with Toumanoff’s extraordinary scholarship.

Rapp, Stephen H. (2003), Studies In Medieval Georgian Historiography: Early Texts And Eurasian Contexts, p. 17. Peeters Bvba ISBN 90-429-1318-5. Kober^Talk 08:55, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I added a source somewhat critical of Toumanoff, however. Kober^Talk 09:20, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

accuracy?

The article states: "Presumably of Iranian origin and a branch of the Mihranid House". However every Western source (including the Cambridge history of Iran) identifies them as Iranian origin of Mihranid house. It seems that sometimes the USSR writing (for local nation building consumption) was geared towards hiding the Iranian origin of many dynasties in Caucasian Albania, Armenia and Georgia. Of course I am not denying that these dynasties took up the local culture and became partially or fully Geoergified/Armenianized. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 15:30, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Regarding their origin

Ehsan Yarshater and David Marshall Lang both report in the Cambridge History of Iran (Yarshater, Ehsan (1968). The Cambridge History of Iran, Vol. 3 : The Seleucid, Parthian, and Sasanian periods. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-20092-9., pp. lviii, 520) that the Chosroids were a branch of the House of Mihran. And there are many more high-quality WP:RS sources that confirm the same thing.

Best - LouisAragon (talk) 23:58, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello @LouisAragon: I'd support expanding of the origins sections if there are any additional sources over Chosroids origins. Chosroids origin from Mihranid house is already mentioned in the section though. Jaqeli 09:42, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Excuse me for this delayed response (very busy). I just added some more authors (Yarshater and Lang). Should do the trick. Best - LouisAragon (talk) 05:08, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Rewrite

I rewrote parts of this article. A simple search shows that in fact most academics/historians consider them as a branch of the Mihranids. I added 6 more academics/historians that attest to this; Yarshater (1983), Rapp (2003), Lang (1971), Pourshariati (2008), Hussey (1966), Lenski (2003), Badakjian & La Porta (2014). Melikishvili, a Soviet historian, is literally the only one who openly doubts their Mihranid origins. The article used to portray the case as if its some kind of "disputed matter" amongst the scholarly community, but this couldn't be further from the truth. Per WP:UNDUE, WP:VER and WP:RS, I removed Melikishvili. Best, - LouisAragon (talk) 18:27, 25 June 2016 (UTC)