Jump to content

Talk:Scythians

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
February 19, 2008Peer reviewReviewed

Add Armenian, Greek, and New Persian transliterations

[edit]

(Old Persian: Sakā; New Persian: ساکا Saka; Greek: Σάκαι Sakai; Armenian: սկյութները Skyout'nerə; Latin: Sacae, Sanskrit: शक Śaka), and Sai (Chinese: 塞; Old Chinese: *sˤək), respectively.[8]

Battle of Carchemish

[edit]

Wiki article by this name reports Scyths allied with medes and babylonians toppling Neo-assyrian empire. 2600:1011:B30E:8F2F:D979:BEA1:3ACC:9316 (talk) 15:24, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"After the Scythians' disappearance..."

[edit]

This statement in the preface is neither sourced, nor reasonable. Why would "authors" especially "ancient" (being much closer in time) persist in applying name Scythians to various non related people? Stupidity or just knowing much better about "disappearance"? 91.230.101.219 (talk) 05:12, 3 December 2024 (UTC) The statement needs to be deleted or replaced with something like "Modern historiography consensus on Scythians' extinction through having been totally assimilated ca 5th century AD disregards the abundance of references to Scythians in medieval and early modern sources". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.230.101.219 (talk) 10:18, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 18 March 2025

[edit]

Under the "Culture and Society" > "Warfare" > "Weapons" > "Archery" section, there is a minor typo at the very end of the paragraph, "...possibly because *hey* might have been...". Presumably, "hey" is meant to be written as "they" instead, and should be edited to fix this. Karma12th (talk) 23:36, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Done tgeorgescu (talk) 00:19, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hippocrates NEVER describes the Scythians as light skinned!!! REMOVE THE SOURCE IMMEDIATLY! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.31.180.144 (talk) 03:59, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Topics concerning history

[edit]

I'm no expert on the subject, but shouldn't the topics discussing the periods be included within the history one? Maybe that would help with the problem concerning the large amount of headlines.

Also, shouldn't the topics and sub-headlines be organized in chronological order? It seems that some subtopics, such as initial interactions with greeks, at the early period aren't arranged like that.Icy Train (talk) 12:06, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]