Talk:Sirras

Illyrian, Lynkestian whatever....

According to the references used in the article before the intervention he was an Illyrian and son in law of Arrhabeus. If there are other sources on this issue please discuss them first on talk page and later maybe we can use them in the article. Right now the recent edits have removed the references without being based on anything other that personal assumptions. Reverting to the previous based and referenced version. Aigest (talk) 16:34, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

http://www.history.ccsu.edu/elias/Sirras.pdf basically everything you need, or really can, know about Sirrhas 87.202.32.1 (talk) 05:46, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I see but these authors claim him Illyrian in well known books (not essays) which had peer reviews adn are used as references worldwide:

1. The Illyrians: history and culture By Aleksandar Stipčević Edition illustrated Publisher Noyes Press, 1977 ISBN 0815550529, 9780815550525 Length 291 pages p48
2. In the Shadow of Olympus: The Emergence of Macedon Princeton Paperbacks Classics/Ancient history Author Eugene N. Borza Edition reprint, illustrated Publisher Princeton University Press, 1992 ISBN 0691008809, 9780691008806 Length 352 pages p191
3. Greek influence along the East Adriatic Coast Volume 26 of Knjiga Mediterana Volume 26 of Biblioteka Knjiga mediterana Author Nenad Cambi Editors Nenad Cambi, Slobodan Čače, Branko Kirigin Publisher Kniževni Krug, 2002 Original from the University of Michigan ISBN 9531631549, 9789531631549 Length 591 pages p112
4. The Greek world in the fourth century: from the fall of the Athenian Empire to the successors of Alexander by Lawrence A. Tritle, Editor Lawrence A. Tritle, Edition illustrated Publisher Routledge, 1997 ISBN 041510582X, 9780415105828 Length 296 pages. p. 172
5. Ancient languages of the Balkans, Volume 1 Ancient Languages of the Balkans, Radoslav Katičić Authors Radoslav Katičić, Mate Križman Publisher Mouton, 1976 p.155
6. Cleopatras Author John Edwin George Whitehorne Edition illustrated Publisher Routledge, 1994 ISBN 0415058066, 9780415058063 Length 243 pages p.27

Moreover all old Greek and Latin authors claim Eurydice I of Macedon as Illyrian and barbarian which was not the case for her grandfather Arrhabaeus and Lyncestians. Aigest (talk) 10:17, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

did you really read the article? it describes the illyrian vs lyncestian "debate" BTW only Borza is a specialist on ancient macedonian history among the people you quoted and his view is mentioned in the article. 87.202.12.122 (talk) 01:44, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

oh also its a published article in the Ancient World (http://www.arespublishers.com/ANCW.html) journal, not an "essay"87.202.12.122 (talk) 01:49, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Since you pretend and I can agree that among those sources only Borza is a specialist on Macedonians (remember that Stipcevic is also a specialist on Illyrians) his full citation in his own book published on 1992 is as follows "Euridice, however, emerges as a person in her own right, strong and indipendent if apparently improper. Her mother was the daughter of Lyncestian king Arrhabaeus, (against whom Perdiccas II and Brasidas have fought) and her father was the Illyrian chieftain Sirrhas, who may have been a Lyncestian ally of Arrhabaeus or his son. In the Shadow of Olympus: The Emergence of Macedon Princeton Paperbacks Classics/Ancient history Author Eugene N. Borza Edition reprint, illustrated Publisher Princeton University Press, 1992 ISBN 0691008809, 9780691008806 Length 352 pages p.191 Sirrhas. Reassuming "Macedonian Specialist" claim one thing and at least other 5 published books and more authors support him. In the other side I see only magazines and not specialists in either Illyrians or Macedonians. Do we agree on that? Aigest (talk) 13:22, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

but Borza's view is mentioned in the article i linked you to and i agreed with you...also Edson, Errington and Hammond whom Kapetanopoulos cites for the Lyncestian view are/were all specialists in our subject. the article is fine as it is and mentions both views so im not sure what youre disputing...? did i ask for the illyrian view to be removed or something?87.202.54.199 (talk) 18:43, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

and ill repeat that AncW is NOT a 'magazine'87.202.54.199 (talk) 18:44, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't have access on Hammond, Errington and Edson works. Regarding Macedonian issues I prefer Borza which I find very NPOV, regarding Illyrian issues Stipcevic and that was my point. Since those two specialists on respective fields maintain the same view than most probably is like that. Another thing, according to linguists prevocalic S ---> H in Greek. So the name Sirrhas could have not been a Macedonian name if Macedonian was a Greek dialect, or Sirrhas could have been a Macedonian name and Macedonian could have not been a Greek dialect but smth close to Illyrian and Thracian. That was the position of Katicic Aigest (talk) 12:53, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

why didnt you read the article...? it summarizes the views of the historians i mentioned (except for hammond who i cant verify ATM the other two dont mention any illyrian origins or even outright call him lyncestian unlike borza -and other historians- whose opinion is included in the article already)...anyway its true about prevocalic s->h in greek (but see also sus/hus for pig) and i agree that the name is most likely not greek but that doesnt mean that the name didnt belong eg to a substratum in macedonia, it could also be thracian or paionian (sirropaiones) or or...does Sirrhas appear as a -specifically- illyrian name anywhere? but you didnt tell me why are you against mentioning "illyrian or lyncestian origins" (as supported by the sources, illyrian is even mentioned first...) instead of just "illyrian origins"?87.202.59.235 (talk) 21:19, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

BTW heres another good source that mentions the whole uncertainty, Elizabeth Donnelly Carney - Women and monarchy in Macedonia, p. 41: "Although we now know that her (Eurydice's) father was Sirras, we do not know who Sirras was or where he came from. Sirras has been identified as either a Lyncestian or an Illyrian". can we agree that the historians' (non)consensus is "uncertain, Illyrian or Lyncestian" as the article already says?87.202.59.235 (talk) 21:25, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Eve if his origin is sometimes considered Illyrian this is not an excuse to degrade the fact that he was primarily a leader of Lyncestes.Alexikoua (talk) 20:49, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

He is not attested to have been a 'leader of Lyncestes', nor that he was an 'Illyrian chieftain', those are both modern hypotheses. – Βατο (talk) 21:56, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

All the more reason to not have them in the lede then. Khirurg (talk) 22:37, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

The lede should summarise the article's content, and should explain what Sirrhas' was notable for, according to current scholarship. That he was an Illyrian chieftain or ruler is supported by many present-day scholars. Btw, why did you remove the information that he fought against Macedon in the Peloponnesian War? – Βατο (talk) 22:42, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

The lede should be neutral and not promote one narrative over another. That he was an "Illyrian chieftain" is just one hypothesis. There are others as well. By making "Illyrian" the seventh word in the article, you are promoting one narrative over another. That is the very definition of POV-pushing. Btw, He participated in the Pelopponesian War in the Illyrian-Lynkestian coalition against Sparta and Macedon

sistill in the article, so...yeah. Khirurg (talk) 22:47, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

@Khirurg: you know very well that the well sourced content is to be restored. I suggest not to waste time as in many articles now. – Βατο (talk) 22:49, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

And you know very well that what you are doing is POV-pushing. Khirurg (talk) 22:51, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm adding here the most recent publication on the matter to immediatly clarify how the subject of this article is described by current scholars, but I'll expand the article with many sources: King, Karol J. (2024) "Macedonia" in The Cambridge Companion to Alexander the Great During the reign of Perdiccas' successor Archelaus, another conflict arose between the Argead king and Arrhabaeus and a certain Sirras (Aristotle...). Though Sirras is nowhere identified as such, it is certainly possible that he was an Illyrian ally of Arrhabaeus." Now I have enough experience to realize your contribution in Wikipedia is just disruptive editing. And I will not waste more time with you here. I'll expand the article and summarize later its content in the lede. And your disruption, as always, will be trivial. Cheers. – Βατο (talk) 23:12, 9 January 2024 (UTC)