Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;dougsmit, post: 2057446, member: 19463&quot;]I don&#039;t know.&nbsp; That is the point.&nbsp; I don&#039;t think anyone knows but the latest books on the subject seem to be going with III.&nbsp; To make it worse, I don&#039;t think they are completely certain of just how many kings named Orodes there were but if the new information suggests that what we used to think was one reign was actually two with the same name we have to decide whether to call the earlier one of the new discovery &#039;one&#039; and push everyone else up a number.&nbsp; I have not read all the arguments on the matter yet and I would not bet we have heard the last revision on all this.&nbsp; In a few years someone else will revise, restudy or decide that all the past scholars were confused and put it out again &#039;their way&#039;.&nbsp; These backwater kingdoms millennia ago leave plenty of room for revisions.&nbsp; Your coin reads Orodes so that may be safe.&nbsp; The numeral is a convention of modern historians.&nbsp; </p><p><br /></p><p>Did anyone ever wonder why sometimes we tack on a number and sometimes we don&#039;t? Why is Titus not Vespasian II?&nbsp; Why is Gordian III not Marcus Pius?&nbsp; If Julian who followed Constantius II is number II, who is number I - &#039;Didius&#039; or &#039;of Pannonia&#039;.&nbsp; History is only as clear as historians choose to make it minus the confusion of new discoveries.[/QUOTE]</p><p><br /></p>

Your name or email address:

Do you already have an account?

• No, create an account now.
• Yes, my password is:
• Forgot your password?

Stay logged in