Talk:Sasanian Empire

Name

Regarding the paragraph added today beginning The terms "Sassanid" and "Sasanian" originated in the 18th century, the online Merriam-Webster says that the first known uses of Sassanian[1] and Sassanid[2] are 1788 and 1776 respectively, but doesn't identify them or quote them. The first edition of the OED does identify and quote uses in 1788 and 1776; they're from Gibbon's Decline and Fall, and for the 1776 entry the OED quoted a footnote with "Sas-anides" (my late edition of Decline and Fall has "Sassanides" there, but may have corrected the orthography). I find that first volume also has, in chapter 8, "... Ardshir, or Artaxexerxes; the founder of a new dynasty, which, under the name of Sassanides, governed ...." I could imagine Gibbon boldly creating a word if needed, but that text strongly implies it predates him, albeit not necessarily in English.

I already changed @Koopinator's "originated in the 18th century"[3] to "first known uses in English", as even though they're merely the earliest that the OED provides, Merriam-Webster does say "first known". Now I'm wondering, given Gibbon's claim, whether even that may not be very helpful to our readers after all. Should we keep the paragraph? NebY (talk) 16:20, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

I just figured it would be useful to help the readers understand that the term "Sasanian" emerged after the empire already fell. Gibbon may or may not have invented these terms, but it seems fair to assess "18th century" as a good chronological ballpark supported by data. In any case, as you said - it's still the first known use in English. Koopinator (talk) 07:55, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

We mustn't imply anything that the sources don't say, and our sources do not say that the terms "Sasanians" and "Sassanid" emerged after the empire fell nor is that a valid conclusion to draw. Remember, Gibbon worked very much from primary sources; we cannot assume or imply that "under the name of Sassanides" refers to a recent secondary source, and indeed very few such were available to him - one reason his Decline and Fall was such a big deal. English-language dictionaries must be used with caution in exploring history. They're largely concerned with appearances in English, a language which emerges from Old English (and French) comparatively late, and in which comparatively few early works survive for use by dictionary compilers; in particular, scholars tended not to use it. Merriam-Webster is extraordinarily bold in asserting "first known use", which I suppose they might justify somewhere as a simplification for the interweb; the OED simply provides dated examples. Thus for example we find Merriam-Webster saying that the first known use of Heracles is in 1846 and the OED's first example of Heracleid/Heraclid dated 1835. We are not going to therefore assert or otherwise let our readers understand that the terms emerged after classical antiquity; Heracles is in Homer, Heracl(e)ids in Tyrtaeus, let alone Herodotus. That "first use" is not within millennia of being a good chronological ballpark.

The claim after that that "Roman authors refer to the Sasanian Empire as Persis" cites only one Roman author's use of Persis. That's a WP:PRIMARY example of the use of Persis, not a WP:SCHOLARSHIP-compliant source and not even a WP:OR survey indicating that Roman authors didn't use any term like Sasanid, though that's the implication of our making that statement.

I'll now follow WP:BRD and remove the paragraph; it doesn't help our readers to understand the Sasanian empire and is misleading. NebY (talk) 13:02, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

Alright, fine. I will defer to you on this - but I still feel a degree of chronological information on the term "Sassanid Empire" would be helpful. Koopinator (talk) 15:06, 31 March 2025 (UTC)