Talk:Kavad II

Religion in infobox

Religion doesn't really get much explanation in the article - it just says " his Christian faith (of his mother)". But the article for his mother Maria (daughter of Maurice) does not explain any further. The problem is that the current entry in the infobox redirects to Byzantine Church which is a disambiguation page. Not all of the entries there can apply. Is it possible to explain further in the article text and/or define a better single term in the infobox? My suggestion, Eastern Orthodox Church, was removed with this edit summary: "Undid GOOD FAITH revision 822654915 by Martinevans123 (talk) anachronistic. And at the time, Heraclius was promoting Monophysitism". Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:32, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

The East–West Schism dividing the Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church dates to 1054, 426 years following the death of Kavadh II. That is why it is an anachronism. At the time of Kavadh, the Byzantine Empire controlled Rome and during the Byzantine Papacy period, all Popes had to be appointed or approved by the emperors. (The exception is Pope Martin I (term 649-655), a rebel who was probably trying to gain some kind of independence. He was defeated, arrested, and died in exile.)

As far as I am aware, Heraclius did not promote Monophysitism at all. He was promoting a new compromise position, termed Monothelitism (that Jesus has two natures but only one will). It was the official religious policy of the Byzantine Empire from 638 to 681, when rejected by the Third Council of Constantinople. I think Monotheletism has been largely abandoned by subsequent Christian eras. Dimadick (talk) 23:22, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Many thanks indeed for that very clear explanation. What would you propose for that infobox entry, or are you perfectly happy with the DAB link? Martinevans123 (talk) 23:24, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Kavad II/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Cplakidas (talk · contribs) 18:03, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a. (prose, spelling, and grammar):

   b. (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a. (reference section):

   b. (citations to reliable sources):

   c. (OR):

   d. (copyvio and plagiarism):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a. (major aspects):

   b. (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a. (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales):

   b. (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/fail:

(Criteria marked are unassessed)

Will review over the following days. Constantine ✍ 18:03, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Lede

• Suggest relinking Iran to History of Iran.
• Maria is obviously notable, so a brief introduction ('Byzantine noblewoman'?) might be a good idea.
• Sheroe overthrew his father in a coup d'état in 628. I recommend giving some background here, by moving the reference to the war with Byzantium up. E.g. "Reacting to the long and fruitless war with the Byzantine Empire begun by his father, in 628 Sheroe overthrew him with help from different factions of the nobility" or similar.
• have heavy consequences for the empire 'have had disastrous consequences for the empire', but even better would be to be precise as to what the consequences were, e.g. 'have destabilized the empire, paving the way for its fall in the Arab-Islamic conquest of Iran.' or similar
• The Austrian historian and numismatist Nikolaus Schindel in contrast suggests that Kavad II's fratricide may have prevented a possible civil war, and had Kavad II lived longer, he may had been able to prevent the disintegration of the Sasanian political structure and the impending Arab-Islamic conquest of Iran. This is pure speculation by one historian, so why is it so prominently featured?

Background

• Hmmm. Schindel doesn't say that Maria most likely belonged to the aristocracy of the Sasanian Empire.. In fact he explicitly calls her "a Byzantine woman".
• I see considerable close paraphrasing here with Schindel when discussing Kavad's age.
• Are there other sources apart from Schindel that might be relevant here? What about the PLRE? It is in the bibliography but not used but once, and it is precisely for this sort of thing that it should be used. Do Howard-Johnston, Daryaee, or any of the other sources mention anything?

Early life

• his political rival Phocas this implies that there was a long rivalry; Phocas was merely someone the rebelling army rallied round. Simply 'military rebel' would suffice.
• the tables had turned against the Sasanians is a bit colloquial. Perhaps 'the military balance had turned against the Sasanians'?
• Briefly explain where Adurbadagan is in modern terms
• Sheroe was imprisoned in a fortress why?
• well-known to whom? I assure you that the average reader won't know of her.

Removed "well-known". --HistoryofIran (talk) 22:45, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

• Most of the events described here are hardly 'Early life'. They are the immediate background to the coup.
• his foster brother either name him or 'a foster brother'
• and the Western Turkic Khaganate mention that the Turks were Byzantine allies, either here or when describing how the tables had turned against the Sasanians
• income of the army simply 'army pay'?
• Schindel also mentions that the opposition was at least in part motivated by Khosrow's threat to execute some of them for their failures.

The coup against Khosrow II

• A general comment: this section contains much detail that might perhaps be better split off into its own article. But this is just a suggestion.
• Briefly explain Veh-Ardashir's relationship/location with respect to Ctesiphon (don't rely on the map for that), and why Veh-Ardashir featured in the plot at all is unclear.
• a group of deputies for a modern reader, this sounds as if they sent members of parliament to him. Simply 'envoys' should suffice.
• newly established Iranian government also smacks of a modern government. 'new regime' or similar.
• Heraclius' recent proposition to Khosrow II unless I missed it, this is nowhere mentioned before
• Much justification for the coup attempt would be gone if there was no assurance that the Byzantines would also favor making peace, as the Sasanian state would get weakened by the coup this can easily be moved before They made the decision and condensed somewhat, as it explains why the conspirators sought out Heraclius
• gloss hazarbed, and if Gousdanaspa Razei is likely to have an article, he should be WP:REDLINKed
• At night, for clarity, repeat the date: 'On the night of 23/24 February 628'
• adopting "Kavad" as his regal name any idea why that specifically?

Will carry on with the rest later today. Constantine ✍ 17:09, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Reign

• that had overthrown Khosrow II 'that overthrew Khosrow II'
• Link 'Armenian' to Sasanian Armenia
• occupation army occupation where? (e.g. 'army occupying the Byzantine territories in the Levant')
• gloss Nemroz, padgospan
• deputy, deputies per above.
• Agitated, Kavad II ordered his father to be executed. Agitated by what? This comes right after the dispatch of an envoy to Khosrow, and is implied to be a consequence of that, but probably that is not the case?
• various figures sounds vague; perhaps 'several magnates' or 'many powerful men'?
• executed on 28 February add the year once again
• inform Heraclius of his victory. 'victory' is I think not the correct word here.
• of a Persian and Armenian, 'of a Persian and an Armenian'
• gained by him 'by him' is redundant
• many of the tactics implemented 'tactics' is probably not the correct word, as this is a military term. 'Policies', perhaps?
• had lived in close proximity unnecessarily vague: had been neighbours
• Armenian Taurus Mountains why 'Armenian'?
• The section 'Peace negotiations with the Byzantine Empire' is fascinating, but it goes into too much extraneous detail (and, I assume, heaves very close to the narrative of Howard-Johnston's book, which might be a paraphrasing issue). For example, the description of Heraclius' letter tells the reader nothing of substance, and other paragraphs can be shortened. E.g. The letter sent by Kavad II to Heraclius from this period has partly survived in the Chronicon Paschale. In it, he labels Heraclius as "the most clement Roman emperor, our brother" in contrast to Khosrow II's belittling message towards the latter. By using the word "brother", Kavad II made it clear right away that he acknowledged the Byzantine Empire as legitimate and equals of Iran. He was thus swiftly re-establishing the dualistic world order that had been dominant for four centuries.[28] He announced his ascension to the throne of his fathers and forefathers via the protection of God in the letter's body, which was kept brief. Kavad II was doing everything in his power to avoid supporting the idea that the war had been a religious conflict by omitting mention of the divinities in Zoroastrianism. can be summed up, in essence, as "In his letter, Kavad labelled Heraclius as his "brother", thereby reversing his father's policy and once again acknowledging the Byzantine Empire as Iran's co-equal. Kavad was also careful to avoid references to Zoroastrian divinities in his letter, possibly in an attempt to avoid portraying the war as a religious conflict." This is just a suggestion, of course, but I do recommend trying to trim details like this. It tightens the text, and is easier to grasp by a reader who is already getting an information overload. Anyone interested in more details can/should look up the reference.
• Byzantine writer Nikephoros I '9th-century Byzantine patriarch and writer'
• Howard-Johnston's arguments are interesting and even plausible, but a) they are conjectures and b) they are the views of one historian. Per WP:SS, this is not the place to analyze all the different interpretations on how the negotiations were conducted. Recommend trimming to the essentials.
• concern of the collaboration I don't understand what exactly the concern was
• Arab historian and geographer al-Masudi '10th-century Arab historian and geographer al-Masudi'
• briefly introduce Mah-Adhur Gushnasp

Religious policy

• I assume the renewed solicitude for Christians was related to the peace with Byzantium?

Coinage and imperial ideology

• I assume that Kavad's reversal of his father's innovations was a deliberate act of political symbolism? Can this be explained briefly in the article?
• The regnal name thing should IMO be mentioned where it is first mentioned that Shiroe assumed it.

Family

• The Chronicle of Edessa was written in the 6th century, so how does it contain anything about Kavad II?

Legacy and assessment

• he may had been 'he might have been'
• apocalyptic chronicle add that it is likely Jewish
• link 'took control of Jerusalem' to Sasanian conquest of Jerusalem

Images

• with the mint signature "AYLAN" what is the significance of that?

Sources

• Please be consistent in having or not having publication locations.
• Sources are high-quality, and include all the most recent literature on the late Sasanian empire. Some specific concerns on source usage have been raised above, but otherwise no complaints.

@HistoryofIran: The article is very comprehensive, and quite well written. My only major concern is that it fails to strike a balance between too much detail, where there is such detail to be had, and too few, where there isn't, as well as the over-reliance on single historians for large sections. Constantine ✍ 20:10, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Awesome, thanks for review, Cplakidas. It's always an honor - I expect to have to time and focus to look at this next week. --HistoryofIran (talk) 21:55, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

@HistoryofIran: please ping me when you want me to have another look. No hurry, just let me know :). Constantine ✍ 19:39, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Ngl, I kinda lost motivation for this one. I'll see if I can resurrect said motivation. Thank you for your patience; I wouldn't blame you if you failed this based on the long wait time. --HistoryofIran (talk) 22:52, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Let's give it a couple of weeks ;). Constantine ✍ 08:28, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.