Roman–Parthian War of 58–63 is within the scope of WikiProject Armenia, an attempt to improve and better organize information in articles related or pertaining to Armenia and Armenians. If you would like to contribute or collaborate, you could edit the article attached to this page or visit the project page for further information.
hmmm almost some pro-Corbulo bias vs. anti-Paetus-bias? It's not major, however, so it won't stand in the way of this article's path to GA.
It is actually rather a problem of our sources: Tacitus (and Frontinus) were very pro-Corbulo, who is portrayed as the model general. And the thing is, well, Paetus lost, and lost stupidly. That never went down well with Roman historians.
Any chance of extending this a bit? I'm not asking for new information, but it just seems like we go 35 years in 2 sentences...
Well, everything was pretty much status quo under Augustus, it was only after he and Tiberius died that the Parthians began moving again in Armenia. There isn't really that much to write there, but I have expanded on the events of the early 50s AD.
First sentence ("Corbulo was given control over two provinces, Cappadocia and Galatia, with propraetorial and later proconsular imperium.")... Whoa. Confusing for the person who does not know history (I may know it, but another person might be link, "Cappadocia and Galatia?? What are those?") and confusing for the person who doesn't know Latin...
I know that there are links, but give a short mini-summary in the article please! You don't want people leaving your article, right? =)
Yes, one often forgets that others may not know the context as well. I have actually come across it many times when reading other WP articles, which makes me both more and less guilty, I suppose :).
What is Primus pilus? (Yes, it's linked...same reasoning above)
This paragraph is jumbled...
Despite this misadventure, having drilled his army for two years, Corbulo was now ready. His army was composed of three legions (III Gallica and VI Ferrata from Syria and IV Scythica) and a large number of auxiliaries and allied contingents from the Eastern client kings like Aristobulus of Lesser Armenia and Polemon II of Pontus. At the same time, Vologases was unable to support his brother, as he faced a serious revolt by the Hyrcanians and raids by the Dahae and Sacae nomads. Corbulo tried to protect the pro-Roman settlements from attack, and in turn retaliated against the Parthian supporters: given that Tiridates avoided confrontation in a pitched battle, Corbulo divided his force, so that they could attack several places simultaneously. In addition, the Romans instructed Kings Antiochus IV of Commagene and Pharasmanes I of Iberia to raid Armenia, while an alliance was concluded with the Moschoi, a tribe living in eastern Armenia.
It goes back and forth between the Parthians and the Romans...just seems confusing to me...
Hmm, about the primus pilus, I am not so sure, I mean, if I write "... primus pilus (first centurion of a legion)", it looks rather ugly, and it kinda defeats the purpose of the wikilink, does it not? It is evident that this is a title, and of no consequence to the understanding of the historical narrative as such. As for the jumbled and confusing nature of the paragraph, I hope I have improved it.
Okay, that's fine—one description isn't going to hold up a GAN.
points 1) & 2): clarified; point 3): the usual stuff, i.e. burning, pillaging, mass executions... Tacitus mentions some discontent, and I think Goldsworthy mentions or implies some sporadic resistance. I don't have his book available right now, however, and so I can't check on it. I've therefore removed the relevant sentence.
"following the route opened up by Lucullus over a hundred years before"...what route?
Beats me. Tacitus (our main and practically only source) says "He then pursued the route opened up in former days by Lucius Lucullus, clearing away the obstructions of long years." I suppose Lucullus had opened up some mountain paths, perhaps even built a road. I don't know, and until Ifind more info, I can't elaborate on it.
Okay then, if there's no more info, then I guess that it would be hard to elaborate. =)
Other wise the article looks pretty good. One last question: there are many unreferenced sentences in here...2 in a row followed by 1 with a reference...I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that the 2 w/o references are covered by that one...am I right?
You are quite right.
I'm putting the article on hold; if no significant progress has been made in 7 days, I'll have to fail it...but if it seems like you are doing well, I'll give you a while. Cheers! —the_ed17— 17:27, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
I think I've addressed your concerns. if there's anything else, please say so. Cheers, Constantine✍ 20:01, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
Nope! Congrats on a good article! (and sorry for my line above, that sounded harsh...I shouldn't have put that about failing!) Cheers! —the_ed17— 03:21, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
OK! Thanks a lot! Constantine✍ 13:47, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
The first map you have in the article is absolutely stunning - easily on a par with Featured maps I've seen. Cplakidas should be congratulated. It's unfortunate that the map below it is not of the same quality. Some notation (arrows and battle symbols) showing major troop movements & battles would perfect this excellent foundation. It would not be hard for you to add the arrows and symbols if you learn a little bit about using Inkscape. Good luck with taking the article further. Dhatfield (talk) 21:49, 9 April 2009 (UTC)