Talk:Bardiya

Name and Sources

A previous author of this section claimed that Gaumata was the biblical Artaxerxes in Ezra 4:7. I challenge this claim because it is inconsistent with the timeline and events of the book of Ezra. Verses 4-5 tells of how the people of land opposed the Israelites apirations by bribing the counsellors to the kings of Persia from Cyrus to Darius; which includes in the proper order: Cyrus, Cambyses II, the magi Gaumata posing as Smerdis who was then slain and followed by Darius I. The story then continues to say that they then wrote letters to the next king Xerxes (aka Ahasuerus) and then Bishlam, Mithredath and Tabeel, then wrote to the next king Artaxerxes I. Then in verse eight Rehum and Shimshai again wrote to Artaxerxes I (Longimanus). Someone even confirmed this by adding: "However, according to H. G. M. Williamson, the Artaxerxes of Ezra (Ezra 4:7-23) is Artaxerxes Longimanus (Word Biblical Commentary, Vol 16)." For these reasons I have deleted this claim from the article. --Avanduyn (talk) 22:43, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I have added some sources for this view that Artaxerxes in Ezra 4:7 is Bardiya. I acknowledge that whatever view of history you believe to be more correct, there are still some glitches. For example, it is strange to see Artaxerxes command all work to cease immediately (Ezra 4:21) and then later give such strong support to the independence of Jerusalam (Ezra 7:13 onwards). Commentaries differ on these points. I'm in contact with an archeologist for some further comment. Relloblue (talk) 06:22, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

These should technically be two articles

There is definitely a historical person Smerdis that we know of and even though the information is limitted we should talk about that person what we know: son of Cyrus II, brother to Cambise II. Then we have the person (or a construct) Gaumata of whom we know only what Dareios I told us in the Behistun inscription and most likely Herodotus based his account on that text; regardless of what we may speculate we have at least one more person. We can discuss as long as we like of the fictitiousness of that magian; however, unless we can prove otherwise, there are two separate persons for now, and therefore should have two distinct articles. Aceofhearts1968 (talk) 22:57, 17 January 2009 (UTC) :-)

Historians ignoring religion CAUSES politics

As 1986 was year of peace & security for 40-year UN (1945-1985) and 100-year stature Liberty so too religion causes events. Smerdis is a Magi priest whether or not anyone gave Bardiya the same name Smerdis. Gaumata is not a name but a christening meaning Cow Mother. It's reference to Taurus bull is easily seen and includes the star Maya as the mother-star of Buddha. If you study religion a buddha is the first man a religion claims has gone to heaven. This is why Jesus as first-man to heaven is ignored by modern Christians to say preFlood Enoch was first-man. And indeed in Hindu antidiluvian Enoch is the Buddha and the rest are Menu (Noah or Nu being the Manu /Man-Nu). The name Gaumata is given to the one claimed as Buddha whose mother is Maya. In that century, Persia had its Gaumata-Buddha (Smerdis), and India had its Gaumata-Buddha, and China had its Gaumata-Buddha (not the same man but a religion creating such because of the calendar cycle that came). That cycle is new year Thoth 1 on January 1 of 522bc. In 365 leap days (1460 years from 1982bc) but in 1508 years (Thompson 100bc Mayan twice 1508 haab is twice 1507 Gregorian) these extra 48 years of 12 leap days increase sothic leap days from 365 to being 377, but solar leap days from 353 to being 365 from 2030bc (origin). It is the claim that the solstice world that died-reborn in 2030bc has come back as solstice 522bc. Thus those who desire to make Bardiya the Gaumata-Buddha are overthrown by those who want to make Smerdis the Gaumata-Buddha. It is the Magi priests (from 525-520bc) who seek to stop Jewish temple, Jewish God, and Jewish Messiah by ruling Persia when Darius comes and says GO BUILD YOUR TEMPLE as CYRUS decreed. Added note: This is also why the world adores the three Magi Priests who defied their religion to declare the world-king as a Jew. It means they went on Kislev 25 (Jewish Christening) before finding and planning the Greek Dec 25 christening. Any Kislev 25 after Dec 25 is either not the year, or was shifted to claim another year (such as 1bc instead of 2bc).72.133.186.186 (talk)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.133.186.186 (talk) 23:46, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Expert needed

I have put this flag on this article. It's an interesting question whether the person who ruled as Smerdis was an impostor, or if this was an invention by Darius, but we really do need some input from recent scholarship on this issue. This article is based on the 1911 Britannica plus some obscure material in Persian. Can we even be sure that the second pseudo-Smerdis wasn't the real McCoy? PatGallacher (talk) 20:50, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

• I am not an expert but I do like the period and read some books. The standard alternative theory is that Gaumata is actually Bardiya(Smerdis) himself, but the second pseudo-Smerdis is an impostor called Vahyazdata. I find it unlikely that any academic believe that the second pseudo-Smerdis was also Smerdis but I don't know for sure. StJohnTheBaptist (talk) 14:55, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I have just consulted 2 recent works, they both consider that the official story is a load of rubbish and the person who ruled briefly was the real son of Cyrus, so I propose to re-write the article to reflect this. PatGallacher (talk) 18:12, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Which two works did you use? warrior4321 20:41, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

You should be sensitive: it is quite possible that Iranian academic sources are more in line with the original Herodotus' version while the western sources more openly doubt it. In full truth, it is impossible to establish now which version is actually correct. This article needs improving but both versions need to be explained StJohnTheBaptist (talk) 20:50, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

These works are: "Persian Fire", Tom Holland, and "The Middle East: The Cradle of Civilisation Revealed", Dr. Stephen Bourke (chief consultant). It would be interesting to find out what recent Iranian scholarship says about this issue, but the sources quoted here appear to be about the Behistan inscription, not the broader history of the period. PatGallacher (talk) 21:18, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Encyclopedia Iranica, written by Iranian and Zoroastrian authorities, and published by Columbia university should also be checked. The article can be found here. warrior4321 21:39, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I would be a little cautious about Persian Fire. It's a great read (and I personally enjoyed it a lot) but it doesn't have a high reputation as an academic work - such is the fate of popularisers of history, unfortunately. I'd suggest focusing more on works from academic publishers. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:45, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I had a look at the Iranian Encyclopedia article and I'm not sure it takes us a lot further.

I realise I could be straying into original research here. There have been a large number of "impostor pretenders" in history, and we may safely assume that the large majority of them were indeed impostors, but this strikes me as just one case where the "official" version of events is suspect. I am aware of only one other case where an "impostor pretender" became de facto ruler for any length of time: False Dmitry I, and there are grounds for finding him less plausible than Smerdis. I am not aware of any other case where the person who was allegedly impersonated had died a while earlier but their death was not generally known. There was Lambert Simnel, who impersonated someone who was imprisoned, but the real person was produced shortly after. PatGallacher (talk) 00:45, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

If that article didn't take us much further, please check this article. warrior4321 01:05, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

The theory you picked up from non-academic source like "persian fire" is hypothetical. It was apparently due to Olmstead (cf. Dandamev). The point is that 1. This "theory" questions 99% of Ancient sources (Persian, Babylonian, Greek and even later Roman). 2. There is no evidence to support that. There is also misunderstanding: Vahyazdata is the one that rebeled against Darius himself. So I am not sure "what is to be clarified".Xashaiar (talk) 02:16, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Xashaiar, you keep pushing you POV. If you know a lot about the alternative theory, please, write about it without you opinion that it is hypothetical. Add referenced critique if you wish. But, please, read what other write first. As far as I understand, Vahyazdata declared himself Smerdis when he rebelled. Someone has asked whether he might have been real Smerdis. I have answered. StJohnTheBaptist (talk) 06:59, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Look Vahyazdata "also" declared himself Bardia (Smerdis). That does not make him real Bardia or first false Bardia. Xashaiar (talk) 07:31, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

You wrote without reading my posts. It is nearly the same what I said. What might make him 1st false Bardiya is the fact that Darius killed Bardiya (if this fact is, in fact, true) StJohnTheBaptist (talk) 07:43, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

You have written nothing like that. You are confusing all the characters. There are at least 4 Bardia in Achaemenid Iran. Your "Persian fire" makes all of them "killed by Darius"? "What might make him 1st false Bardiya is the fact that Darius killed Bardiya" this sentence is supposed to make sense? If yes, how? Xashaiar (talk) 08:09, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I did read that Iranian Encyclopedia article before I said it didn't get us much further. I only looked at "Persian Fire" after I had opened this discussion. Modern scholarship has challenged the official version of some events e.g. it has acquitted the Templars. These ancient historians may have been uncritically regurgitating the Persian official line. For centuries most serious scholars accepted that e.g. Pope Joan was a real person, or that there were witches with magical powers or in league with the devil. Could you clarify about Olmstead and Dandamev. PatGallacher (talk) 08:36, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

You are asking for "new theory" about something from ancient time. Difficult to handle. This story is 99% accepted by ancient sources and I guess that means we should accept. Because even archaeological discoveries can not change anything (note that the official story is also supported by inscriptions, Babylonian tables, indigenous and non-indigenous sources..). New theories remain as "hypothesis" which if any of them become very interesting can be mentioned otherwise not really. Dandamaev (in the article "Bardiya" in Encyclopaedia Iranica) mentions about the hypothesis that is base of what can apparently be different from "recorded story". He says :"Some modem scholars (e.g., Olmstead) believe that the man who revolted against Cambyses was his true brother and lawful heir and that Darius killed him, calling him Gaumāta and inventing the story of the false Bardiya in order to justify his own seizure of the kingship. However, this must remain hypothetical (see gaumāta)." Now what Darius himself and other historian say is "Cambyses ordered the killing of Bardiya". disagreement is whether the one killed by Darius is this one or another one (called "false Smerdis" by Herodotos). Most sources say Darius did not kill Cambyses' brother. Xashaiar (talk) 08:46, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

this source does not seem a specialist work. I think we should remove that or find a better one. Xashaiar (talk) 20:29, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

In spite of what was said above, I don't think there's any particular reason to favour ancient sources over modern ones. There are some benefits from using ancient sources, but modern sources also have their place in the discussion - modern sources are capable of drawing on a wider variety of accounts, can use archaeological evidence, etc. Nobody really knows whether Gaumata was an invention or not, so I think it should be presented as an open case. I don't think the article at present really does that. It's quite heavily weighted towards the "traditional account", with the "revisionist view" almost tacked on afterwards. Blankfrackis (talk) 13:21, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Scholars base their information on any evidence existing. the story of guamata acctually being bardiya (and there never being an imposter) is just a theory. the only firm evidence we have relating to bardiya is the behistun inscription. I find no issues with the article. it presents the story made by Darius in the behistun inscription, and then presents the theory made by some scholars. So im removing the tag UNLESS someone disagrees and adds it back

Smerdis or Bardiya

Which name should we use mostly in the article? In my view, it is English wiki, and his Western name is Smerdis, so we mostly should use Smerdis. What do you think? StJohnTheBaptist (talk) 07:03, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

"Bardiya" is correct and more common in all parts of world. There is only problem with spelling "Bardia", "Bardiya", "Bardya", etc. Xashaiar (talk) 07:32, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

What do you mean by all parts of the world? Herodotus used Smerdis, for instance. It may be useful to add a couple of sentences explaining the two names situation at the start. StJohnTheBaptist (talk) 07:43, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

We might consider renaming this article, but let's deal with one can of worms at a time. PatGallacher (talk) 08:36, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Let's solve one problem before starting another. warrior4321 11:06, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

We may have achieved a degree of stability with this article, although it still needs more work. Now that we have done so, should we look again at the name. Should we move it to "Bardiya of Persia"? PatGallacher (talk) 15:32, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Bardia of Persia? Bardiya is fine, but a disam will be necessary. Xashaiar (talk) 20:15, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

The Encyclopaedia Iranica calls him Bardiya, we would have to add "of Persia". PatGallacher (talk) 21:25, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

"we would have to add" why is that? Is there any other Bardiya? this "of Persia" is OR and academic sources do not use that. If there is a confusion we may use "Bardiya (Iran)", "Bardiya (Persia)", "Bardiya (Achaemenid)".. or something similar, but that shoulod be done only if we have enough Academic sources using those phrases, I think "Bardiya" or "Bardiya (Iran)" or "Bardiya (Persia)" are good and are according to Wikipedia naming policy. Xashaiar (talk) 22:01, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Why would we have to add "of Persia" ? There doesn't seem to be any other Bardiya, so just having an article with the name Bardiya seems perfectly fine. warrior4321 22:04, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I thought there was a consensus arising, but I may have misunderstood things. Bardiya at present is a disambiguation and a place in Nepal. So we have to call him "Bardiya of Persia", unless we treat him as the primary meaning which could be contentious. This title is also in keeping with Wikipedia guidelines for names of monarchs. PatGallacher (talk) 02:10, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

This article is in an unsatisfactory limbo. It is now called "Bardiya of Persia" but the article content mostly calls him Smerdis. Unless anyone objects I propose to change the article content in a day or so. Should we treat him as the primary meaning of "Bardiya", or as being of roughly equal importance to the Nepalese district, I would go for the latter approach. PatGallacher (talk) 11:56, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Previous requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was no consensus. @harej 13:41, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

---

Bardiya of Persia → Smerdis of Persia — A Google search shows 7000 hits for Bardiya and 92,000 for Smerdis. warrior4321 14:39, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Against As this is a proposal to move it back to a recent former title I think it could have been done without going through the formal move procedure. Google searches do not always clinch matters, they can pick up dated or amateurish scholarship, various mirrors. I think recent scholarship is shifting in the direction of Bardiya, as this is the name which he was known by to his own people we should err on its side. PatGallacher (talk) 15:59, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

The French, German, Polish, Russian, Ukrainian and Belorussian Wikipedias all call him Bardiya. PatGallacher (talk) 16:28, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

That's an unwise argument. It has been my experience that all too often the other language wikis simply copy the names used in the English wiki. The French (or Germans, Polish, Russians, Ukranians, Belorussians, etc) can use whatever name they want. What truly matters here is what name is commonly used by English-writing historians (which name is used more often in English publications). I sincerly don't trust Google results alltoo much, perhaps Warrior4321 could provide us an insight? Flamarande (talk) 18:46, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Would you trust Google Books? 684 hits for Bardiya, 1133 for Smerdis. warrior4321 20:01, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

As this article has only been at "Bardiya of Persia" for a few days that is not a valid argument, it's the ones that use "Smerdis" that have probably been copying the English wikipedia. The argument appears to be that he is overwhelmingly known as "Smerdis" in the west, a flexible concept, but in this context presumably means cultures which are the heirs to classical Graeco-Roman culture. The French article looks better than ours. Where 2 names have serious currency in English, if in doubt go for the one which is how they were known in their own culture. PatGallacher (talk) 22:33, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

strong oppose: Your google search is wrong. As I explained above, the transliteration "Bardiya" is the correct one but not the common one. Compared with "Smerdis" the name "Bardia" is the dominant name used for the person we talk about. See 2,660 hits for "Bardia" vs 1,360 hits for "Smerdis". Note that I have added "Darius" to search to make sure that the results are about the person we talk about. Xashaiar (talk) 00:24, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Still, on Google Books, Smerdis Darius gets 1,385, while Bardia Darius gets 113 hits. warrior4321 00:39, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

You miss the point: "Bardia" is the transliteration you should use. I will have no problem with moving "Bardiya of Persia" to "Bardia of Persia". But from an encyclopaedic view, the form "Bardiya" is better because it is used by scholars of Iranian studies. Xashaiar (talk) 00:43, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, Bardia Darius gets 113 hits, while Bardiya Darius gets 729 hits on Google Books. warrior4321 01:17, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

So? Do you understand what I wrote?

1. According to Google scholars "Bardia" is more common than "Smerdis" in scholarly works. (The links given in my "strong oppose" comment).
2. According to "most respected" scholars of Iranian studies, "Bardiya" is correct and not "Bardia". (Check Encyclopaedia Iranica and The Cambridge History of Iran,...). I was saying: what is the deal? lets use the point of view of scholars in the subject...

I think this "google search argument" makes English wikipedia non-encyclopaedic. Xashaiar (talk) 01:33, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Yet, Smerdis is more common than Bardiya and Bardia on Google Books and Google Search. More books and sites use the term Smerdis more than Bardiya or Bardia. warrior4321 01:37, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

No. Google scholars use "Bardia" more common than "Smerdis". Wikipedia does not ask us to use Google web search or Google books. It asks us to use "scholarly works". I would say, this means we look at most authorative sources that I mentioned and if you doubt about them then use "google scholars" which proves that "Bardia" more common than "Smerdis". Note that google books index "any book". Xashaiar (talk) 01:53, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

According to Google Scholar, here Bardia does not even talk about the Baria we are looking for. However, here when we are looking for Smerdis, it shows up. warrior4321 02:04, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

That's why you should add "Darius" to searches. Finally you got it. Moreover 1. According to yourself "Bardia" is more common than "Smerdis". 2. who told you/how you checked that all searches of "smerdis" talk about the one we are looking for? Did you check 1000+ results? 3. In any case "Bardia" is more common in scholarly works than "Smerdis" and so it may make sense to change move "Bardiya of Persia" to "Bardia of Persia". Xashaiar (talk) 02:36, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Going through the first ten pages shows not even one search of the Bardia we are looking for, however the Smerdis search talks about the one we are looking for, through all 10 pages. warrior4321 02:46, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Irrelevant. Since "Bardia" is "much more"" common than Smerdis, removing few of them that you checked makes no difference. Xashaiar (talk) 02:54, 5 October 2009 (UTC).

And that's why crystal structures and hepatitis B are the first ones that arrive in the Bardia search. Google searches happen by keywords or tags. If it was so commonly used more than Smerdis, it would have appeared in at least the first ten pages. warrior4321 03:06, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

• Strongly support. What English authority uses the ill-formed Bardia? Bardiya, is, despite its claims to accuracy (which are essentially Darius' claims that his revolution was justified), much less common as a reference to the affair than Smerdis. One characteristic difficulty with Google is that any account of the impostorship really must mention both names at least once, no matter which the author actually uses.
  • Simple Smerdis, or even Bardiya if we decide on that, would be preferable, however. We don't need to disambiguate the Achaemenids; unlike the Plantagenets, they are not surrounded by a swarm of other dynasties with the same stock of names, so Smerdis (and Darius III) are effectively unique. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:09, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

• Strongly support Both Google Book Search and Google Scholar proves that Smerdis is much more popular than Bardiya. PMAnderson is right as well. Surtsicna (talk) 20:13, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
• Support A search on Google Books and Google scholar shows that Smerdis is more common overall. A search on recent articles shows more resluts for "Bardiya", but most of them are irrelevant (related to authors with surname "Bardiya"). If we add results for "Bardia", the results will be more numerous in Google Scholar, but "Smerdis" Ghits are still more numerous in Google Books. Alefbe (talk) 04:02, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Looking into this further, I have consulted some recent works on ancient history, and most of them prefer Bardiya as his name. PatGallacher (talk) 17:34, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Don't use weasel words. Which recent works on ancient history have you used? warrior4321 21:25, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

The works I am referring to are "Who's Who in the Ancient Near East" by Gwendolyn Leick, and "A History of the Ancient Near East" by Marc Van De Mieroop, which both call him Bardiya. This article is in limbo, but I suggest that we take account of where recent scholarship is heading. PatGallacher (talk) 21:54, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

As this article appears to be stuck at Bardiya I suggest its content should be edited to reflect this. PatGallacher (talk) 23:32, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

The article does not seem stuck to me. The move request does not seem to be "no consensus" as well. 4 against 2 seems like a majority has been made. As well, your oppose was due to "the French, German, Polish, Russian, Ukrainian and Belorussian Wikipedias all call him Bardiya." Most of the articles that are formed in other wikis occur after taking some information from the English Wikipedia.

More sources state the name as "Smerdis" than Bardiya. Even Herodotus called him "Smerdis". warrior4321 00:04, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

The last move should not have been made without discussion. See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility). "Bardiay of Persia" is one possible title within the framework of this convention, "Bardiya (Persia)" is not. PatGallacher (talk) 11:56, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. The discussion should however be moved to "Smedis of Persia", see my comments above on why. warrior4321 00:02, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was moved. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 12:01, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

---

Bardiya of Persia → Bardiya — This article is in an unsatisfactory limbo, after a previous move request resulted in "no consenus". In my view we should now move it to "Bardiya". As a result of previous move discussions his two immediate predecessors as monarch of Persia (Cyrus the Great and Cambyses II) do not have "of Persia" in their title, so in his case "of Persia" is superfluous. PatGallacher (talk) 16:04, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comment I don't see any evidence of this "limbo" that you speak of. The article exists, it is linked to, it is not orphaned, it has not been deleted. 76.66.197.2 (talk) 05:22, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose I see no reason that just because two other articles have had "of Persia" removed that this one should too, unless some other argument is presented. 76.66.197.2 (talk) 05:22, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

• Reply I think the last 2 contributors may have misunderstood some of the issues here. When I referred to this article being in limbo, I did not mean that it was orphaned. What I did mean was that there are 4 titles which are at all tenable: Bardiya, Bardiya of Persia, Smerdis, or Smerdis of Persia. In spite of its name the article usually calls him Smerdis, this is unsatisfactory, the issue of what his primary name is needs to be resolved one way or the other.

Secondly, I quote Wikipedia naming conventions for royalty, WP:NCROY:

"Most of the conventions below are intended for medieval and modern European and Muslim rulers and nobility, since in these civilizations several countries share the same given names, so some disambiguation is often required, and disambiguation by territorial designation is convenient. Elsewhere, territorial designations are usually unnecessary in names and in article titles."

As there is no other person called Bardiya (or Smerdis) with a biography on Wikipedia there is no need to disambiguate him and the default option is to just call him this, in the absence of a significant reason to the contrary. One possible reason to the contrary might be that we are referring to all Persian monarchs as "of Persia", but if we are not going to do so then we should only add this if it is necessary for disambiguation. PatGallacher (talk) 20:35, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

As we now have a clear decision to refer to this person as Bardiya can the article be edited to reflect this? PatGallacher (talk) 13:37, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Merger proposal

I propose that this article and Gaumata be merged, as they effectively cover the same topic. I would prefer it if they were merged at "Bardiya", but that may not be crucial. PatGallacher (talk) 20:43, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

As nobody has objected for over a week I propose to go ahead with this merge within the next day or two. PatGallacher (talk) 18:00, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Modern view

The quote by Lindsay Allen, The Persian Empire, p.42 is "[Darius'] desire for public belief in this completely unverifiable story [that Bardiya was in fact Gaumata] is huge ... Darius' protestations have not quite convinced modern historians, who largely suspect that Bardiya may well have been the real brother, the legitimate successor of Cambyses, and that his death was probably an act of regicide." Yaan (talk) 01:18, 15 October 2020 (UTC)