Talk:Achaemenid Macedonia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Former countries, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of defunct states and territories (and their subdivisions). If you would like to participate, please join the project.Former countriesWikipedia:WikiProject Former countriesTemplate:WikiProject Former countriesformer country articles

Classical Greece and Rome Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome, a group of contributors interested in Wikipedia's articles on classics. If you would like to join the WikiProject or learn how to contribute, please see our project page. If you need assistance from a classicist, please see our talk page.Classical Greece and RomeWikipedia:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeTemplate:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeClassical Greece and Rome articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Iran Low‑importance

	Iran portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Iran, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles related to Iran on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project where you can contribute to the discussions and help with our open tasks.IranWikipedia:WikiProject IranTemplate:WikiProject IranIran articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Greece Low‑importance

	Greece portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Greece, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Greece on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GreeceWikipedia:WikiProject GreeceTemplate:WikiProject GreeceGreek articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Ancient Near East Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ancient Near East, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ancient Near East related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Ancient Near EastWikipedia:WikiProject Ancient Near EastTemplate:WikiProject Ancient Near EastAncient Near East articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Scope, name, etc

While this is an interesting subject, which deserves attention, I doubt whether it is suitable as a stand-alone article. Persian overlordship clearly was not a watershed moment that broke with the past, as the Persians still exercised their control over and via the Macedonian royal institutions, rather than e.g. converting it into a province under a satrap. As such, the Achaemenid overlordship over Macedonia was simply a phase in the ancient kingdom's history, and should be included at Macedonia (ancient kingdom). This also avoids the question of what to call this period; "Achaemenid Macedonia" is a neologism, and like all neologisms, subject to widely differing POV definitions/interpretations. IMO, we really don't need to add yet one more conflict over Macedonia to WP. I'd also very much prefer if the statement about the "fully subordinate status within the empire" could be backed up by more than one recent study, especially as the article does not elaborate exactly how this "fully subordinate status within the empire" differs from the previous vassalage. Constantine ✍ 14:54, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Cplakidas:, hey, good to hear from you again man. :-) I fully agree with your reception regarding this. We could do several things I think;

- indeed redirecting all of this to a separate section on Macedonia (ancient kingdom) and thereby removing this article.

- changing the name of this article (f.e to "Achaemenid rule in Macedon", or something alike, avoiding the usage of a neologism)

The difference between the status Macedon had between 492 and 479 BC and from 512/511-Ionian Revolt comes mainly from the fact that Mardonius' actions, which partially includes its results, were quite a bit differently as compared to Megabazus' actions of several years earlier. Regarding your last point, I believe Roisman and Worthington (2011) also agree upon a subordinate status (not literally wording it like that), and they also kinda distinguish between Mardonius' and Megabazus' actions, if I'm not mistaking.

Very recent material (from the last 5 years) that specifically zooms upon this is quite scarse, for I have not been able yet to find anything else more recent (and thats really proper material) other than Roisman & Worthington (2011) and Vasilev (2015).

In either way(s), theres plenty of material to expand the content regarding this stuff more, obviously. If you're up for moving it to a separate section on the already existing Macedonia (ancient kingdom) page, which I totally support, then let's do it. :-)

Bests - LouisAragon (talk) 00:15, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good, give me a few days to see if I can find anything about it. I realize this is a topic probably only dealt with in depth by recent studies who tend to examine such issues more closely and critically than in the past, but we shouldn't fall into the trap of recentism; we need to put these studies into their context, and also see how much they have shaped the wider consensus/view about the period. Well done nevertheless to begin working on this :). Cheers, Constantine ✍ 07:59, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Cplakidas:, (excuse me for the belated response), sure, that would be great! Please let me know whenever you're gonna take new actions. :-) I'm there whenever you need me. Bests - LouisAragon (talk) 15:51, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Roisman & Worthington 2010" citations must be rewritten or removed entirely

I say this because Roisman and Worthington are the editors of that book. The chapters are written by individual authors, all of whom must be cited correctly. Refer to my rant at Talk:Alexander the Great#The citations are an absolute mess. If this problem is not fixed within a reasonable amount of time, I will address the matter by removing them all. Hopefully someone has the patience to simply correct them. You can do so by referring to the book available in its entirety at Archive.org. Pericles of Athens^Talk 09:34, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Vassal from 511 to 492 BC

I fail to see how this is supported in the main body of the article. I assume some infobox cleanup is needed in this case.Alexikoua (talk) 18:47, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]