Talk:Roman–Persian Wars

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Featured article Roman–Persian Wars is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on February 8, 2010.
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Greece (Rated FA-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Greece, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Greece on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Iran (Rated FA-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Iran, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles related to Iran on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project where you can contribute to the discussions and help with our open tasks.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Military history (Rated FA-Class)
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions. Featured
Featured article FA This article has been rated as FA-Class on the quality assessment scale.
WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome (Rated FA-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is part of the WikiProject for Classical Greece and Rome, a group of contributors who write Wikipedia's Classics articles. If you would like to join the WikiProject or learn how to contribute, please see our project page. If you need assistance from a classicist, please see our talk page.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Middle Ages (Rated FA-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle Ages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Middle Ages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Territorial changes in data box[edit]

Hello I made some changes and expanded the results of your article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MadeByGod (talkcontribs) 06:20, 6 April 2010 (UTC) The point of the territorial changes section of the data box is to record how the territorial position after the conflict was different from the position before. Of course, this would normally be applied to a single war rather than several centuries' worth of them, but the principle is the same. This section is there to record how the situation after the last war between the Roman Empire and the Sassanids differed from the situation before the first war between the Roman Republic and the Parthians. Zburh (talk) 01:18, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

actually not. this article is nothing but "an overview of centuries of wars" so the result section should be "an overview of all the things". So I think the infobox was fine before you open that can. this is my point of view--Xashaiar (talk) 01:23, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
My reference to the can of worms actually related to the introduction (see above, if you can be bothered to read through all the screeds of discussion which that question produced).
Even to include only the permanent cessions of territory that took place at the end of various wars (the gains made in Mesopotamia by Septimius Severus, Galerius and Shapur II, plus the various adjustments of control in the Transcaucasus) would be pretty long-winded and (as I see it) not consistent with the function of that section of the databox. To include the more complex and extensive details of all the occasions when one side or the other occupied some portion of enemy territory or lost it again in the course of a particular war would be horribly unwieldy and impractical. Zburh (talk) 01:46, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
I disagree. The infobox was good.--Xashaiar (talk) 10:57, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Well, I disagree with you. At least, Zburh has a wll-grounded argumentation. You just have your "disagreement". And why are you putting the same image twice in the article?! Don't you see the image already exists?! And of course it is not better like that. You broke two sections and made the article in these particular sections look ugly. For God shake! What's this nonsense for Roman or Persian POV for events which took place 2,000 years ago! Come on, now!--Yannismarou (talk) 14:17, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Poor Zburh. Per Sept you were a "Persian nationalist"! Now, per Xashaiar you obviously became a "pro-Roman POV pusher"!--Yannismarou (talk) 14:22, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Well, no one likes a neutral. Zburh (talk) 21:15, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
I don't know. But from September on lot could have happened. Even USA has got a new president. Such things can happen and change one's perspective.--Xashaiar (talk) 14:33, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Irrelevant. If it was an attempt for humor, thanks for the effort, but I failed to grasp it. Now, if you argue that Zburh became pro-Roman because Obama became the new US president, this is another thing! Having to respond to such an argument ... Well, I cannot! I surrender!--Yannismarou (talk) 14:41, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Oh, of course "it was an attempt for humor". --Xashaiar (talk) 14:50, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

location of image[edit]

The Humiliation of Valerian by Shapur (Hans Holbein the Younger, 1521, pen and black ink on a chalk sketch, Kunstmuseum Basel)

Question: where this image should be located? Historiography at the end? I think that would be unfair. Why not in the section "Early Roman–Sassanid conflicts". The image should be relocated.--Xashaiar (talk) 14:28, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

You already have an image about the event in the relevant section, and a Persian one! Why to put there both?! I initially had there the painting, but, after proposals by Persian users, I changed them, and put there the image from the Persian monument. And what does unfair mean?! A nice painting serves its purpose everywhere! Do you want to exchange places with the Persian monument? But why should we use in the history section a painting of the 16th century, when we have a near-time monument?!--Yannismarou (talk) 14:38, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Check also the discussion [here, where I fought another vicious effort of the pro-Roman wiki-faction to belittle Shapur's achievement. Old good pro-Persia times! Before Obama's election!--Yannismarou (talk) 14:44, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
You make your points. You see, the image shows how Roman saw the event. This is important. The current location tends not to appreciate the artistic side of the conflict. Persian monument remains there. I don't know, if the current location of the picture is good. Let it be there.--Xashaiar (talk) 14:48, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
It shows what the 16th century painter imagined it would be like-with all the historical detail inaccuracies intact.HammerFilmFan (talk) 05:56, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
Let's wait for further feedback, and if other users agree with you, move it. What can I say?!--Yannismarou (talk) 14:50, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Fair enough.--Xashaiar (talk) 14:54, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Publius Licinius Crassus[edit]

In the section on the Battle of Carrhae, the article notes that Marcus Licinius Crassus died along with his son, Publius; however, the link led to Publius Licinius Crassus, the consul of 171 BC. Since the battle took place in 53 BC, and since Marcus Crassus himself wasn't born till around 115 BC, and since an FA is supposed to be a model article, and since it's a history article, this otherwise small error struck me as fairly credibility-undermining. There are at least two disambiguation pages devoted to sorting out the Publii Crassi: Publius Licinius Crassus (disambiguation) and Publius Crassus. The article actually titled Publius Licinius Crassus (son of triumvir) is quite a lengthy treatment of the subject, with a detailed account of the battle from the perspective of Publius's men and discussion of background to the war. Cynwolfe (talk) 13:10, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Greatest extent of Sassanid Empire[edit]

Someone posted a sentence in the article stating that the map that shows the greatest extent of the Sassanid Empire, dated c. 610, should instead be dated c. 620. I removed the sentence because it didn't belong in the article, but don't know whether or not the person who put that there was right. Ucucha 13:11, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

It was accurate: the conquest of the Levant and Egypt did not happen until after 610. Either way, this map is grossly inaccurate, as has been explained at various points at Talk:Sassanid Empire. I did suggest to the Map workshop to make a new one, but nothing came of this, alas. Constantine 14:02, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
I changed it to 620 in the article on the strength of your post. Wouldn't it be better to remove the map for now, though, if it is inaccurate? Ucucha 15:06, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
I replaced the map with an external link box with maps from actual atlases. Constantine 15:54, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Wow![edit]

Although mainly inactive during the last months, I am thrilled to see the article in Wikipedia's main page. Who made the petition for first page publication? It was Constantine? Anyway ... Cons guys! It was a nice surprise which made my day, and reminded me the "old" days, when me and other users were working on this article to bring it to GA and FA status. And, inevitably, when there is collective work, there are frictions and disagreements. I remember how furious I was, when Sept submitted a FAR (grrrrrrr!), but now, watching from a distance, I see everything with a different eye, and I understand that the common denominator of everybody's actions was the achievement of a higher quality for the article. Unfortunately, sometimes there were misunderstandings.

Just a minor remarks: Have the rules in WP changes or this long list of external links within "Primary Sources" should go?--Yannismarou (talk) 14:13, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

No, it wasn't me, but it is certainly a pleasant and welcome surprise! BTW, is there any chance you'll be back editing here? You and your great contributions are being missed... Constantine 15:44, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure who all is responsible for this article... but it is amazing. It even makes for a good read. Thanks all! Azoreg (talk) 17:58, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Errors in Roman–Persian Wars article[edit]

The page refers to Iranian Empires, and Wars between Roman and Iranians. This is totally irresponsible and sloppy. The Romans never fought Iranians. There were no Iranian empires. The Romans fought Persians and the empires were Persian. The word Iran goes back a long way into history as excellent pages in Wikipedia point out, but it describes the people, or the land, but not the empire. The Romans like the Greeks before them knew their enemy as Persis, Perses, or Persica. They fought Persians.

When the Mongols invaded Kievan Rus in 1237, they did not fight the "Soviet Union" or the "Russian Republic" which is how the place was known for most of the 20th century and is known today. They invaded and fought against whatever THEY called those people!

It is at best ambiguous, at worst historically inaccurate to describe the Sassanian as an Iranian Empire. They were Persians, particularly where their Greco-Roman enemies were concerned.Mardak63 (talk) 16:04, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the term "Iranian" is a) correct and very widely used in scholarship to refer to the ancient Persian states/people/culture and b) far more appropriate than "Persian", because it also covers the Parthians, who were an Iranian people but certainly not Persians. Constantine 16:18, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
The Parthian Empire known in Farsi as Ashkanian was in fact PERSIAN! They were preceded by the Achaemenid Empire and if one looks at the territory of both PERSIAN dynasties, one will see that the use of Parthian and Persian as differently as it is in the above comment is in fact implying a disparity where none exists! The Farsi word for both is PARS and the Persians--known today as Iranians--do consider both dynasties as belonging to the collective of Persian Empires. The trend to use the word "Iranian" in place of Persian has been actively promoted by the Islamic Republic of Iran over the past thirty years. If one looks at historic "scholarship referring to the ancient Persian states/people/culture" that predates the Islamic Republic, Wikipedia, and the internet, one will find The word Persian used correctly and discover that the Romans never fought "Iranians." As far as they were concerned, they fought Persians because that's what the Romans called their enemies from the east and that is how the Kings of Persia described themselves, using the word Pars and Parsi to refer to themselves.208.252.13.8 (talk) 19:26, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
Yes, well, the current scholarly consensus is that "Iranian" can be and is being used as a legitimate catch-all term for these empires/peoples/etc, and Wikipedia has to follow that. As for the word "Persian", the Sassanids for instance used Eran, not Pars to describe their state. And "Iran" was promoted in international use not by the Islamic Republic, but by the Shah. I am aware of the controversy over the use of "Iran" and "Persia" among Iranians and the political associations of the respective terms, but WP is not the place for this dispute. Regards, Constantine 21:36, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
"I wasted time and now doth time waste me." Yes, the Shah did aggressively promote the use of the word Iran but only in as far as it involved current references to the country. What the land was called 2500 years ago during its inception was never in question by the Shah. That is merely a recent development. And as you correctly point out the word eran--pronounced Iran--is an ancient word which actually predates the Sassanids by several hundred years and two dynasties. In fact, eran was eran before the Achaemenid dynasty and the advent of the Persian Empire, but that's not what the people who formed the empire called it. They called it Persia. It is unfortunate that Wikipedia which is very much a living document and a widely viewed version of history, as you say "has to follow that" catch all term. The distinction between Persia and Iran is historically critical as is the difference between the Soviet Union and Russia, in that it represents an era and periods in history. You are incorrect my friend in that WK as a historic record is very much the place for the settlement of this dispute, particularly if WK has conveniently chosen the historically inaccurate expressions of history by which to refer to people, places, and times in ways that would have been alien to the people at the time. One after all does not refer to Iron age Britain as the United Kingdom, so these things are important. I thank you for your time and your clarification.208.252.13.8 (talk) 22:25, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
There is a fundamental problem with your argument here: the "Soviet Union" is a term which did not exist in say the Middle Ages, so it obviously can not be used in such a context to refer to Russia. However "Russia" can and is being used to refer to the USSR. By your own admission however, "Iran" is an ancient term, used at the same time, even officially, by the ancient Persians. It is also well-attested that "Persia" is rather an exonym, as the name the Greeks gave the entire Achaemenid Empire. So both names have the same historical validity, and the use of "Iran" is not anachronistic as you imply. Further, as explained above, the fact that "Iranian peoples" covers more than just the people of Fars/Persis, makes it an ideal term for including the Parthians as well. If you don't like it, sorry, but that is how scholarly usage stands, and WP, as an encyclopedia, has to respect this. Constantine 23:14, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Beside, the term Persian is in fact wrong when applied to ancient history. Therefore the change "Persian->Iranian" is not only following scholarly works, but also a correction. Xashaiar (talk) 22:58, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I used the Soviet Union example merely to point out that the various names by which countries are called at various points in history do matter, not to try to follow any particular logic. In fact, it is difficult to find a historical parallel to the Iran/Persia/Iran situation. "My own admission?!!!" I am not trying to win an argument here, although I see that that is lost here. The general accuracy of the term Iran/eran is not in question here, nor is its age or its origins. We certainly agree on this point. You use the term "scholarly usage," but for every "scholar" you may reference, I can reference two who would support my position. Nor does this have anything to do with my likes or dislikes. I actually prefer the word Iran, it's what I was raised with. I had never even heard of the English word "Persia" until I began to study the history of Iran in the west. Again you talk about Parthians and Persians as if they are from two different worlds. They spoke the same language and if you transpose the maps of the two empires, you'll notice, they are pretty much the same territory. Actually, Persia is not a name the Greeks gave, it was also what the Persians called the land, Pars. The Greeks merely picked up on what they were hearing. You know, this is my very first post on Wikipedia. I had no idea I was going to start a religious war or upset people. I am telling you everything I have learned over 40 years of research. Take it, leave it, debate it, whatever. If I had the time--which I don't--I would actually love to continue this discussion with you, however in a more tempered and scholarly and less heated manner. Wikipedia is merely a tool, not a be all end all--although it is rather wonderful. I wish I had time to reference texts and studies as many wonderful people-like who ever wrote the original article in question here--have, to show you where I am coming from. But I don't. I can't even believe I got this far! Thank you for your perspective.
As for the user who says a term Persian that has been used for millenia through out the western world is simply "wrong"--I am assuming this is because he says so--I am not even going to engage in that discussion.Mardak63 (talk) 03:30, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Sorry if you mistook this discussion as "heated" :) Anyway, again, what is your point? Why is it "at best ambiguous, at worst historically inaccurate to describe the Sassanian as an Iranian Empire"? Why is "Persian" to be preferred over "Iranian"? Clearly both terms are historically equally valid so...? Since the "general accuracy of the term Iran/eran is not in question", I simply don't get what you object to. At first you explicitly pointed at its use being anachronistic, but now...? If the Cambridge History of Iran goes to cover the entirety of Persian history, if scholarly books refer to the Persian and Parthian states as "Iranian", what is the problem? Either the article is still called "Roman-Persian Wars", so again what exactly is the problem? That the Parthians are called "Iranian" and not "Persian"? Constantine 03:48, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Vasconia and Basken[edit]

In the maps During Justinian Reign and Roman and Persian Empires in 477, two political entities so-named Basken and Vaconia appear taking up a considerable extension of the North of the Iberian Peninsula.

This is largely unaccurate, because:

1. There was not such political entities ever. To the most, one can think that for some decades the cantabrian and basque (and not just basque) territories were to some extent outside the reach of the effective authority of the Kingdoms or Empires ruling most of the Peninsula. But this should not allow to confer them definite borders and an explicit political entity.

2. At any rate, to bring the western "border" of these territories to the centre of present Asturias is a huge mistake.

Excellent article, otherwise.

Buron444 (talk) 16:47, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

This is not a problem of the article, but of the image, so the tag should be removed. --TakenakaN (talk) 11:16, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Infobox list[edit]

The infobox seems to be rather overloaded with links to articles about commanders. This should really be cut down or moved into the article itself, especially since something like a third are redlinks. Please keep in mind that infoboxes are supposed to be brief summaries.

Otherwise a nice and informative article. Good job, everyone.

Peter Isotalo 20:38, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

The title[edit]

I suggest the title of the article be changed to Roman-Iranian wars since the sassanid realm was known as "Iranshahr" ,Not "persian empire" or anything else alike. I assume the parthians didnt consider themselves "persian" either. 78.39.92.21 (talk) 10:10, 13 February 2010 (UTC)Goshtasp

"Persian" is the common name in English. HammerFilmFan (talk) 06:03, 2 August 2012 (UTC)