Talk:Sasanian Empire

Main Image

I reverted the image back to the greatest extent image. The source that verifies this is the Encyclopedia Iranica article "Sassanid Dynasty" which can be accessed online at iranica.com. Specifically the paragraph on Khosrow's long and consequential wars. If we use the greatest extent map for the Roman Empire and Alexander's Empire, despite the fact both of those were temporary, it is illogical not to use the same for the Sassanian empire. Artin e Bozorg 21:55, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Sassanid Dynasty is NOT an empire

Sassanid dynasty was a dynasty under the Persian Empire, not an Empire! Its childish, empire within an empire??? Persian Empire was the Empire which the Sassanid Dynasty ruled. Please correcct the title and all relevant links from Sassanid empire to Sassanid Dynasty.

Hmmmmmm, are you sure you want to go there? What is your reference point here. Talking from a "native" point of view, it was neither a "Persian" nor a "Sasanian" empire. Both are outside constructs (one is the ancient Western/Greek term for the territories and the other a modern designation). However, today it is generally called the "Sasanian Empire" in the scholarship, so we should stick with that...--Khodadad 02:10, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

spelling

this is a minor point regarding spelling. it seems that spelling 'sassanid' is more prevalent than 'sasanid' but instances of 'sasanian' outnumber that of 'sassanian.' i would tend towards using 'sasanid' and 'sasanian' myself as these spellings better represent the correct pronunciation. i'm asking for insights into the matter or opinions before i move the page and change other occurances of these terms on wikipedia. indeed this is a minor point. --Aria Parsi 2.8.06

some guy's comment

Mr Zereshk I ask you sincerely stop wikifying my articles ! let the Wikipedia itself wikify photos .So dont worry , ok ?

References

In the german article is a good overview with regard to sourcesa and secondary works. Why not here?

"barbaric"

"Near the end of the 5th century a new enemy, the barbaric Hephthalites, or "White Huns," attacked Persia [...]" I don't like the word barbaric, it has a negative (cultural) connotation and as such shouldn't be used in a historical article. 'Nomadic' might be a better choice. Karoschne 11:26, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

Kudos

Spectacular images with this article! The map, too, is a very practical touch. I'm always surprised by the frequency with which articles about early history assume that the reader is familiar with the many place names, none existing on modern maps. Here, you provide a useful tool. Well done! --Philopedia 22:49, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

...but the copyright status is quite dubious.

the Umayyad weren't the ones who ended the Sassanid Empire

it says in the article that Umayyad ended the the sassanid Empire which is worng, the Sassanids were ended under Caliph Umar who was one of the four rightoness Caliphs before the rise of the Ummayads for many years.

Amir85's edits

Some of your edits seem to be written in a hazy language and they are not sourced (which could you please do? It would be very helpful). For instance "The Manichaeism was favoured by Shapur, he protected Mani." is not really a sentence and while I understand the idea of it it should be put into context. That whole section also remains pretty choppy. I'm afraid I don't know this well and since I have no source I'd need you to supply yours. Thanks. gren グレン 07:07, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm afraid that Amir is cutting and pasting, so that chunks of good English copied elsewhere are clumsily joined by his English-as-a-second-language. I found one source for the copyvios: [1]. I think there must be other sources too, but I haven't mounted a concerted google to find them. Most of the articles that Amir adds are created this way. I keep meaning to go down his list of contribs and work on the copyvios but I just haven't had time. I wish he wouldn't do this, as it makes extra work for everyone else. I suppose we could just roll back to the latest version before he started working on the article. Zora 12:24, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

following paragraph appears to be incorporated from a machine translation of an unsourced german text. which, i think, may be a copyright violation; and, i am sure, of bad taste:

The Manichaeism was favoured by Shapur, he protected Mani. Under Shapur's successors Bahram I (273-276) and Bahram II (276-293) the Manichaeism, which found also in the Roman realm was pursued . Otherwise above all relating to domestic affairs Shapurs quite intensive city politics stood out. In the cities created by Shapur there were settlers from the western terretories, which included some Christians, who could exercise their faith there, were settled. He attacked the Romans, but after defeating the emperor Galerius near Callinicum on the Euphrates in 296 was completely defeated in 297 King Narseh (293-302) attacked the Romans, but after defeating the emperor Galerius near Callinicum on the Euphrates in 296 was completely defeated in 297, some areas in Mesopotamien were lost to Romans. However the Sassanids, like Romans had not to only fight at a front, the new Persian realm had to set itself against intruders form other fronts, the passports of the Caucasus had to be likewise defended like the always endangered northeast border, where the Sassaniden had to fight first against the Kushans, later against the White huns and the Turks. These peoples did not show themselves rarely as serious threat for the Sassanids.

--Calm 22:10, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Khazars and Romans

The Khazars were allied with the Romans in the persian-roman war of 602-629, that is true. But they didn´t travel south with Heraclius 627!!!! Read W.E. Kaegi, Heraclius, 2003, or Ostrogrski etc. --84.135.177.159 10:58, 8 November 2005 (UTC) ps: the list of rulers isn´t correct: Boran had a sister (Azarmidukht), who ruled for a few moths, but who isn´t mentioned in the list (see the Prosopography of the Later Roman Empire or the Encyclopaedia Iranica).

Sassanid edits

Yes my edits have their own drawbacks, sometimes dubious in terms of copyright (I've included all the sources and references in the end of the article), but I will correct them (this is not of my clumsiness, about the German translation I didnt have time to correct it but I will defintely pay more attention next time) About my major contribution in this article intially the article was in copy-paste style (but not copyvio, I'd acquired their permission through contacts) but then I put a lot study about Sassanids and with help of a UCLA teacher right now I'm trying to enrich and expand the article. All the relating articles except Sassanid army and Sassanid architecture are fruits of this extensive research. Amir85 1:12, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Amir85, since you have a long history of copvio, and since people who WROTE articles you copied have complained, loudly, there is no reason to believe that you have permission to copy. If you can't rewrite it, then don't copy it! It's easy enough to rewrite. Sometimes when I work on articles, I use cut-and-paste, offline. I paste all the sources I can find into a document, break them into chunks and rearrange them, and then rewrite completely. That's OK; just plain copying is dishonest. Zora 02:18, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

The part "Early history (224-310)" is partially copied ans translated from the (featured) german article - but without the necessary references to the copied source extract (this is copyright protected).

That part is a monumental inscription, Whatever the source is, all sources refer to a same translation of the inscription for your knowledge. Stop editing blindly. Amir85 12:09, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Amir: it is the res gestae saporis - and your translation is a translations of a german translation of the greek text (the inscription is in greek, partian and middle-persian). Do not fool us...

First of all I dont know whom I'm talking to, so whoever you are, Yes it is a german translation of the greek inscription, but no matter what language it is, its a monumental inscription, as you know it remains the same for any language its been translated to !

Remains the same? Well, no. There are some words that are not easily translated. A one word concept like, say, "satyagraha, may require a whole para to convey fully in English. Some translations are better than others. A Babelfish translation of a foreign text is highly unlikely to be a good translation! Also, you copied more than just the inscription. Zora 23:19, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Oh so you care about inscription remains intact? I didnt know that, very good , so how are going to help expanding the article (not just filling the discussion page), and if you dont know this is the wikipedia copyright policy including German wikipedia:

The license Wikipedia uses grants free access to our content in the same sense as free software is licensed freely. This principle is known as copyleft. That is to say, Wikipedia content can be copied, modified, and redistributed so long as the new version grants the same freedoms to others and acknowledges the authors of the Wikipedia article used (a direct link back to the article satisfies our author credit requirement). Wikipedia articles therefore will remain free forever and can be used by anybody subject to certain restrictions, most of which serve to ensure that freedom.

I know what are your intentions so I dont think there is any point continuing this argument. Good luck Amir85

Map

The map displays not the Sasanid Empire in the time of Shapur II, but the temporally conquests of Shapur I. Shapur II never, i repeat, never advanced so far west. The Sasanids and the Romans fought in Mesopotamia, in the area of Amida for example (cf. Ammianus Marcellinus, or The Cambridge History of Iran, vol 3.1, pp. 137ff.). Shapur I, on the other side, penetrated into Cappadocia and Syria - of course, the success was only temporally, Cappadocia and Syria were not conquered. The map could be from Iran Chamber or Britannica (both used it, if i remember right), but the legend of the map is totally wrong! If you want incorrect informations - then keep the old version.

---

Listen, I think there is some confusion on the map, it is meant to show sasanid dynasty at its peak. At its peak during Shapur I era, Persia had temporarily conquered areas of both Syria and Turkey, these were also battle destinations.

---

It doesn't seem appropriate to use a map that does not depict the actual extent of Sassanid rule during the majority of the time they held power. Granted, the Byzantine-Sassanid border was fluid, but it seems more reasonable to have Syria, Egypt and eastern Anatolia in light green to represent temporary control. As is, it looks like the Sassanids controlled much more territory than they actually did. Shadowstrike 21:52, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Pushing to FA

This is in response to a question Amir asked me on my talk page

The article is sort of in an in between zone at the moment. On the one hand, factual content and references are getting to be top notch, definitely FA quality. Writing quality isn't uniformly high just yet, but that's something that I and other copyeditors can improve as it goes along, so that's not a big concern.

The issue that needs serious work before we can think about FAC is the overall layout of the article, and the question of what facts to include. Certain things, most notably the issue of religious toleration, come up over and over again in the article; it would be better if that subject was discussed all in one section, rather than talking about it a little in a bunch of different places.

My recommendation for how to go forward with this would be to draw up a "grand plan" of what the finished product is going to look like, and then move and reorganize sections to fit that plan. Based on what I'm seeing in the article, here's what I would recommend:

• Lead (which, by the way, is very good right now).
• History (this section is also very good)
• Foreign relations
  • Relations with China
  • Relations with India
  • Relations with Barbarian tribes
  • Relations with Rome (new section)
• Government and Society
  • Sassanid government
    • Sassanid military
  • Sassanid social system
  • Sassanid art and architecture
  • Religion

Obviously, you know more about the Sassanids then me, so you may be able to come up with a better structure; the point is, there needs to be a coherent plan for how the article is going to present its facts.

Once this is taken care of, it will be time to sort out which facts go where, and to expand or shrink few sections. I think the religion section could probably be shrunk a bit, since most of what's said there is also covered at the Zoroastrianism main article. The Sassanid military section, on the other hand, needs to be expanded. I'd drop the Ammianus quote--it doesn't say much about the military as a whole--and add a larger discussion of the military's structure and tactics. I'm not a big fan of the "in modern media" section; I think it would fit in better in the article about the video game. Remember, things in this article should be things that say something notable about the Sassanids.

For the art and architecture section, I'd like to see a paragraph added about Sassanid painting, since that isn't really covered yet. Perhaps something about other forms of art, such as sculpture or metalworking, could be added as well? Again, you're the one who knows the subject matter; just make sure the section is a good summary of Sassanid art for someone unfamiliar with the subject.

The biggest trick to this will be making sure that the article gives the right level of detail on all its subjects--which is tricky when you're covering a massive topic like this. Digressions on minor points should be saved for daughter articles. Remember that the article is a summary, designed to be used by readers unfamiliar with the topic, and select your material accordingly.

You've been doing good work so far, and although its not there yet, I think this can be a top-quality FA if a coherent plan for organizing the article is implemented.

I'll be away from my computer for a few weeks, starting tomorrow; I'll give the article a last going over before I go. If you're looking for a final pre-FAC copyedit before I get back, you could try asking Tony1 or Jengod; they're both excellent copyeditors, and I've seen them do work on PR/FAC articles before.

Good work so far, and good luck! Robth^Talk 21:29, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

was it the first islamic empire ?

--TuzsuzDeliBekir 17:40, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't think you are Iranian. No, Sassanid Empire was not Islamic. The state religion was Zoroastrianism. Anyways, I'm glad you want to know about this. (The One We Call God 21:41, 14 March 2006 (UTC))

Please support

Please support this article for featured article candidate. I think it's a great article and it deserves to be approved as a featured article. Thank You. (The One We Call God 21:44, 14 March 2006 (UTC))

Congratulations!

Great job! Wow, you guys finally made it to featured article and I'm glad. Only 0,1% of articles make it here. Good Job ;-)

Thanks man. Amir85 20:34, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Corrections

First of all, if we are considering academic accuracy, then the Sasanian Empire was not the 'third' Persian Empire, but the second one after the Achaemenids. Parthian/Arsacid Empire was an Iranian Empire, but not a Persian one.

Then, please include the original name of Firouzabad. It was called Ardashir-Khwarrah.

Sasanians never called their domain Eran. Eran means "Iranians" while as mentioned, Eranshahr (Old Iranian *aeryanem-khshathra) indeed means "the dominion of the Iranians" and was used in the Sasanid texts.

I haven't gotten beyond the introduction yet. I will get back to you on this.Khodadad-- 01:47, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

A couple problems with the introduction to the section on Sassanid culture: the second sentence says that "The amount of scientific and intellectual exchange between the two empires [Byzantium and the Sassanids] is witness to the competition and cooperation of these ancient cradles of civilization." Cooperation? The entire article has talked about fighting between Byzantium and Persia. And could these be called "ancient cradles of civilization," particularly during the period in question? Also, the following sentence goes on about the "striking difference between Parthian and Sassanid society . . " What happened to the previously mentioned Byzantines?

I hate people who can't just understand that Persia is the name used by the west for Iran. Parthians and Sassanians are both Iranian (Persian). (The One We Call God 01:48, 13 April 2006 (UTC))

I also hate people who hate people for correcting the issue that Persian doen NOT equal Iranian! At least in the academic study of the pre-Islamic history of Iran (of which Sasanians are a component), the word Persian means something quite different from what modern political biases have created of it. In the pre-Islamic history of Iran, Persian and Parthians, both part of the greater Iranian socio-lingual group, are distinct. Parthians were not a Persian Empire, but they were an Iranian Empire. --Khodadad 21:14, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Iranians might not be Persians, but unfortunately Greeks used Persians (Persia) to describe the whole land of Iran and Iranian people. This is true that Persians , Parthians, Medes, Kurds, etc,etc, they all live in Iran and they are all Iranian, but in the west, they wrongly use Persia for the name of Iran (and if Reza Shah hadn't changed the name, we wouldn't have to talk about these things today). But I'll correct the thing, so both me and you will be happy. The Unknown 23:17, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

You can go and see it your self in the Persian Empire Article that Sassanid Empire is the third Persian Empire.

Also this is from the Persian Empire article:

Persia has long been used by the West to describe the nation of Iran, its people, and its ancient empire. It derives from the ancient Greek name for Iran's maritime province, called Fars in the modern Persian language and Pars in Middle Persian. Persis is the Hellenized form of Pars, and through the Latinized word Persia, the other European nations came to use this word for the region.

So the word Persia means Iran and Persians means Iranians (although, I know that in the real definition Persians are just a part of Iranian people but we can't change the fact that the west use Persia as Iran) The Unknown 23:22, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Even assuming that the word "Persian" empire is used in the sense of an Iranian Empire, still Sasanids would not be the third ones. We should then count the Medes at least, even if we imagine that Elamites were not part of the Iranians and Seleucids should be forgotten. We would need to count Medes, Achaemenids, Arsacids, and Sasanians, making them the fourth Iranian (or if you will Persian) Empire. However, since we are talking here. We should consider the fact that this is an encyclopaedia article, not a piece in a popular magazine. If it is in an encyclopaedia, we need to keep it academic and on-par with the latest scholarship. I can say for myself as a gradutate student of history that if today I write anything like "The Sasanids were the third/fourth Persian Empire", my professor will give me a big, fat zero. So, I am suggesting that we try to deviate from the popular culture and aim for a higher audience. Despite what the Greeks called Iran and what it was known as for thousands of years, academically now the collectivity of the place is Iran and its various Indo-European languages are grouped under the term Iranian Languages and its people are called Iranian. Academically we are then obliged to seperate Persian and Parthian and Median and Kurdish and etc. from Iran and don't mix it. --Khodadad 10:12, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Change it if you like, but I think they hadn't told you that Seleucid Empire was not Iranian, nor Persian. Which makes Sassanids the third native empire of Iran. 66.36.151.167 17:22, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Correct dating format

Whoever wrote the article, you did a bad job writing the dates. Please write the dates in the correct format, add links to them, and date them properly by writing BC after each date, ex: 225 BC.Zmmz 01:33, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

So Sassanids ruled before christ ? interesting ! Amir85 09:52, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Great picture and description.

Thank you for putting the picture of Tagh-e-Kasra and it's great description.

Impartiality

I don't see any problems with doing a survey of cultural influences of the Sasanians in an appropriate section. But I think the second paragraph of the article about the far reaching influence of the Sasanians takes much off of its character as an academic, encyclopaedic article. I am not removing it, but would others let me know if they agree to removing this paragraph or moving it somewhere else?--Khodadad 04:14, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Agree but with a small portion of its influence remaining in the place (makes it more appealing to international reader) however we have to insert a decent paragraph in its stead. Amir85 08:11, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Third Empire

Sassanids where third NATIVE IRANIAN EMPIRE. 66.36.142.7 00:37, 13 May 2006 (UTC) The Sassanian dynasty is armenian.

Ok, I accept they are THIRD (3) Iranian EMPIRE not civilization (because many civilizations ruled Iran before). BUT they weren't ARMENIAN. They are 100% Persian. As they tried to follow the path of Achaemenid dynasty. I got nothing again Armenians, thy are nice people but Sassanids were NOT Armenians. Persian Savant 03:19, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

ehem

We could make this clearer taking the Achaemenids and Sasanians as the first and second iranian "civilized, nation-like" empires, respectively. The Parthians were tribal-like, and are not involved with the old Achaemenids, we should say that this is not the case with the Sasanians, and by the way, as far as I know the Sasanian dynasty started with ardashir I, in a kingdom of afganistan wich is the ardashir's place of origin.

What are you saying dude? Parthians were actually very civilized Empire. Yes they were nomads until they settled up but they were very civilized and a big challenge to Roman Empire. Actually Roman Empire learned it's tactics from Parthians in war and they had a big respect for them. Persian Savant 03:22, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Another thing, if your born in Texas, can't you be American? Afghanistan was a part of Persian Empire for a long time. If he was born in Afghanistan, he can still be Persian by blood. Today afghans are a lot different from old Afghans since today they are very mixed with Indian, Chinese and specially Mongols. Persian Savant 03:26, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

neutrality?

The academy of gundishaupur article directly contradicts what is said here re: looting.

The persian gardens and Islamic Conquest of Iran articles are the same to varying degrees. Jedi Master MIK 22:01, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Custom Map Needed for the Empire

The maps currently online do not show the greatest extent of the Sassanid Empire. The Sassanid Empire at its height controlled all of egypt, palestine, yemen, syria, and large parts of anatolia on top of the regions shown on the current picture. Should we make a custom map? so basically, the territorial extent was the same as the achaemenid empire except for parts of anatolia and thrace. (note, the empire's territorial height was between 602 to 629)Khosrow II 18:38, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is becoming very ***. I mean come on, the map was alright, they just want to delet it and we got no map for this article. Please find a map and put it here as soon as possible. Thanks. 66.36.144.77 05:02, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

ok, i put in the custom map that I created. it shows the sassanid empire at its greatest extent (almost the same as the achamenid empire except the sassanids couldnt get thrace) Khosrow II 05:05, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

why did you take my map out?Khosrow II 05:07, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I took it out and I put it on the header. It's better i think. 66.36.148.139 18:43, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Dear Khosrow, your map ruins the proportion of the article and it's best fit on the top of the page. We don't need a map twice on the same page. Your map is greatly appreciated since the old map is erased and we needed another one for the introduction. Thank you. Arad 18:45, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

yea i realised that, thanks.Khosrow II 18:50, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

The greatest extent of the Sassanian empire did not last for very long. The border with modern-day Yemen is also not entirely accurate. I strongly suggest keeping the previous map which was a more accurate reflection to the area that was longest under Sassanian influence, which better explains the long-term cultural influences on those areas by the Sassanians. Alternatively, the constructed map could be featured within the article. Nakhoda84 20:13, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

i have the date down concerning how long it was under sassanid rule, we are not trying to mislead anyone. yes, the borders are not completely correct, but its better than nothing. the other map had copyright issues.Khosrow II 20:14, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I changed all the maps of the Sassanid Empire to this:

Its seems as though someone made a better looking version of the map i made before, so I replaced it. This one looks better, but its the same thing.Khosrow II 23:06, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Hello Khosrow II,

I am very much an ardent reader of Sassanid history and military achievements, but I do have some questions regarding the map. Specifically, the entire Gujarat region in India is added to the dominion of the Sassanid empire as per the current map. Given that during the period you refer to (the early 600s) that region was a part of Harsha Vardhana's Empire, I was wondering: on what sources are these additions based? If not at this time, please inform me of what other time this conquests would have taken place.

While the Sassanids are credited with claiming overlordship over the Kushans of that period, one should note that the Kushan empire at that time consisted essentially of parts of Afghanistan and northwestern Pakistan (not Gujarat). Accordingly, throught the fifth century and most of the sixth, Gujarat was under the rule of the Guptas (whose secondary capital was at Vallabhi). Please refer me to the sources that were used to base this inclusion, as I would be interested in reading them. Otherwise, could we consider altering the map to account for this? Thanks.

Regards,

Devanampriya

My source was another map. Also, it is very possible that the state you are talking about was a vassal or part of the indo-Sassanid empire.Khosrow II 13:37, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Hello Khosrow II,

Thanks for your response. Would you be able to direct me to the map that was used so that I can examine its sources? My concern is that there may be no record of any Sassanid conquest in Gujarat. The territories that the Sassanids (indo-sassanids) gained in India were in the Punjab. The only Indian dynasty that was recorded to be a vassal was the Kushan empire, which at that point, ruled in the western Punjab and Southern Afghanistan (this is accurately displayed on your map). If we can find reliable sources that verify successful campaigning in Gujarat, then I have no concern with the map. However, this may not be the case, since Harsha ruled Gujarat during that period and the Maitrakas soon after. Are there any museum/history book maps that we could scan and upload instead? Again, I am an admirer of the Sassanids, so my concern here is accuracy and not diminishment of their legacy. I would appreciate it if you or anyone else could refer me to the map you used as reference. Thanks.

Best Regards,

Devanampriya

Your welcome. Here is the map I used to determine the eastern borders of the empire (the western borders I determined using Will Durant's description): [2] I believe the map was origionally created by the Iranian Chamber society, which is a reputable source.Khosrow II 04:14, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Hello Khosrow II,

Thanks for your help. The western borders make sense to me as the Sassanids controlled those regions until the campaign of Heraclius (in any event, the Story of Civilization is an excellent source). I'll do some research and let you know what I find about their holdings in the East. Thanks again.

Regards,

Devanampriya

Image of Shapur II

What is going on? What happened to Shapur II picture? The image was used on so many pages that now it's removed, all those pages look empty. anyone have an idea of what happened? Thanks Arad 03:15, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Sassanid "knights" as origin or Arab or European Knighthood

These provisions are inaccurate, and have been deleted. The primary weapon of the Sassanid clibanarii was the bow. This weapon was used to "shower shoot" arrows into beaten zones, as described in Roman sources. Arab heavy cavalry developed from the bedouin tradition of light horsemen, who fought using a controlled series of charges with a lance. They were organized and granted land on the traditional tribal jund system of regional forces, not on any Sassnaid feudal system. As for the Arab cavalry in Spain who supposedly had such an influence in Europe, they did not even carry a bow at all, and were not nearly as heavy as the article claimed -- they were known for their speed and manueverability, not for the shock of their impact.

Arab light cavalry became increasingly heavy as the conquest continued, due to plunder and increasing resources. The Sassanid empire had many, many profound influences on the Arabs, but the composition of cavalry types was not one of them. When the Arabs wanted armoured horse archers, as the Sassanids had been, they had to hire them from the Turkic people beyond the frontier -- the Ghilmen.

The supposed connection to Western chivalry is even less relevant. European knighthood developed out of Germanic warrior society and the changes to that warrior aristocracy due to the expansion of Germanc Europe under Charlemagne's conquests, and the long period of anarchy that followed, had nothing whatsoever to do with Persia.

Suggestions otherwise seem highly POV.Larry Dunn 18:46, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

You are wrong. The main unites of the Sassanid military were the Savaran, an elite cavalry unit. The Romand later adopted this unit into their eastern ranks so they could have a chance of winning against the Sassanids. These units later influences Europe. You can read Kaveh Farrokh's book on the Sassanid military (it is very detailed and the first of its kin). It was published by Osprey, which publishes works on militaries of different era's.

Also, there are inscriptions of Sassanid nobles having lance battles before they ever even got introduced into Europe.Khosrow II 21:55, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Maybe I am wrong, but explain why. Address the specific points I made above.

Don't cite Osprey books to make assertions like this. They are little wargamer booklets for people with toy soldiers, not authoritative sources. (It's fine to cite them if the subject is non-controversial.) Cite a peer-reviewed history. You won't be able to, as there are none.

If you prefer, you can look at the literally hundreds of books published about the rise of knighthood and feudalism in Europe which attribute this rise, correctly, to the changes in the Germanic noble classes due to Charlemagne's conquests, and then the Magyar/Viking invasions that followed. See, for example, Hans Delbrucks' Medieval Warfare, just one of hundreds of books on the subject with no reference to Persia as an influence, as no such reference is necessary. Roman forms of heavy cavalry were not adopted by the German tribes who overran the empire.

Similarly, with respect to the Arabs, the Arab cavalry tradition was substantially different from that of Sassanid Persia. Sassanid troops were valued in the Arab army after the fall of the empire precisely because they were so fundamentally different from the Arab Jund cavalry. Likewise, when later Arab forces needed armoured horse archers (such as were the great majority of Sassanid cavalry), they hard to hire Turkish ghilmen.

Please cite a source other than the little Osprey booklets to support the assertion that European and Arabic knightood derives from Sassanid heavy cavalry. This seems, frankly, a highly POV assertion.Larry Dunn 22:13, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

The heavy cavalry was impossible with the sadle and the stirrup. Persia had both before Europe did. The Roman historians who write about it describe something amazing to them that they've never seen before (referring to the heavy knights of Sassanid Persia, the Savaran). The Romans adopted this and this was later passed onto the Byzantines. The Germanic influence you were referring to is mostly for western Europe. However, the heavy cavalry did first origionate in Persia, was spread to the Romans and Byzantines by their encounters with Persia.

That proves nothing when it comes to European knighthood -- there is no such thing as "the heavy cavalry." Armoured horsemen evolved in multiple places at multiple times. They are not all traced back to one source. Who had the stirrup first does not prove anything about the origins of European knighthood. What you need to do is cite a source from a proper history book (not an Osprey) which states that European knighthood evolved from Persian heavy cavalry. There is no such source, but there are hundreds of sources that give the correct attribtion to the evolution of european knighthood.Larry Dunn 22:32, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Also, you are wrong about the Arabic cavalry too. Arabic cavalry was mostly light cavalry, meant for desert warfare. The heavy cavalry that the Lakhmids adopted was based on Persian cavalry.Khosrow II 22:26, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Same comments as above -- cite a source. A real one, not a wargamer's booklet.Larry Dunn 22:32, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I will address your points individually now:

• Do not get the Parthians and Sassanids mixed up. The Parthians were the ones who heavily used the horse archer, however, by the time the Sassanids took power in Persia, they relied mostly on heavy cavalry, and less on horse archery. Infact, in the later years of Persia under Sassanid rule, the influence of horse archery in the army was very small.

I don't have the Parthians and the Sassanids mixed up. The Sassanid cavalry were primarily armoured horse archers. Listen to the Byzantine emperor Maurikios, who says that Sassanid heavy cavalry have a bow, a sword, and armour. No lance. To quote Maurikios: "They wear body armor and mail, and are armed with bows and swords." Ammianus says the same thing, but adds horse armour. Procopius says that the Sassanid horse had swords and bows, butr "only a few" of the Sassanid heavy cavalry had lances. (Some suspect that these were ex-Arsacid nobility, who Ammianus refers to as catapracts. References to these disappear after the Late Roman period, so these hangers-on from the Partian period may have died out.) Ammianus says that the Sassanid cavalry assaulted the Romans by standing and firing massed archery. You should check these primary sources, and serious histories of the period. Ospreys are really just not good enough.Larry Dunn 04:11, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

• Arabs used light cavalry before their contact with Persia. This was due to the fact that light cavalry was better suited for desert warfare. The Lakhmids and Ghassanids adopted heavy cavalry after Persian influence. Even still, the light cavalry made up the majority of Arab cavalry.

Arabs of the Conquest period did not adopt Sassanid combat methods or equipment. I have already discussed this. The Jund cavalry adopted heavier armour and fought in closer order, but did not take on Persian tactics at any time.Larry Dunn 04:11, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

• There are inscriptions all over Iran depicted lancing and knights centuries before lancing and nights even became a norm in Europe.

Examples? Besides the obvious relief of Taq-i-Bustan, of an emperor very heavily under the influence of the Byzantines (who used lances)? Anyway, numerous primary sources refer to the heavy cavalry as being armoured horese arhers. Why would the warrior emperor Maurikios lie in his Strategikon, written to be an accurate evaluation of his enemies?Larry Dunn 04:11, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

• The Romans adopted Persian style heavy cavalry to be able to combat the Savaran. This influence was later passed onto the Byzantines and Western Europe.

But not to the Germans who conquered the Western empire, and Central Europe. Just as the German tribesmen did not adopt legionary equipment, so did they cavalry not adopt Roman cavalry equipment. Do you have a source that indicates that they did? Anyway, only a very small fraction of the roman cavalry adopted Persian style fighting tactics. There were only a handful of clibanarii regiments.

Of course, if you can cite a serious scholarly source that says that these German barbarians adopted Persian armour and equipment and that's where European knights came from please do so.Larry Dunn 04:11, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

• The Scythians/Sarmartians, another Iranian people, were also very influential in terms of European cavalry. They were even recruited into the Roman army and sent as far as England.

Can you provide a source to prove that they were "very influential," and had anything to do with the development of European knighthood?Larry Dunn 04:11, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I hope this cleared up some things for you.Khosrow II 22:34, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Read some of the primary sources, and some scholarly sources, rather than the little wargaming booklets -- I think you'll find your impression of the Sassanid cavalry changed. The Mamluks were, for instance, probably the descendents of Sassanid tactics, and they used the massed shooting tactic to defeat the Mongols. Note that Mamluk tactics were substantially different from those of native Arab cavalry and, of course vastly different from European knights.Larry Dunn 02:31, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Also, your comments about Osprey are unfounded. The books are very informative and site all of their sources. They are by no means children's books. They are very detailed and contain a lot of information.Khosrow II 22:36, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Some of them are not so terrible, some are frankly ghastly. They are not academic publications. They should not be cited as serious sources.Larry Dunn 02:31, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Do not cut up other peoples messages! Fix what you wrote and then I can reply, right now its too confusing, you have to write under other peoples posts.Khosrow II 02:41, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Do not lecture! I have responded in the normal form, which does not require "fixing." You can respond to each of my points by adding one more colon, offsetting your text one space tab in. Responding any other way to a long, multi paragraph message would be what's confusing.Larry Dunn 04:08, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

You cut up my posts, you cant do that. Your supposed to post under other peoples posts, not in them! Its about order, this way everything is chaotic. Fix your post.Khosrow II 04:13, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

As has been explained to you, at times breaking up long posts makes the conversation easier to read. If you want to respond in one block, be my guest. You won't see me telling you how to post replies.

In any event, let's see some citations of sources (not Osprey books) to support the notion that european knighthood (or Arab heavy cavalry, for that matter) evolved from Sassanid cavalry.Larry Dunn 13:26, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I have some more information for you on Sassanid archery.

Check Maurikios, as he is even better as a source than I had thogght. Not only does he say that the equipment of the Sassanid horseman is a bow, sword, and armour, he later says that Sassnaid cavalry do not have lances, and finally he says that Sassanid cavalry deploy in rought terrain to avoid the charge of enemy lancers -- the rough terrain gives the Sassanid cavalry time to shoot down the lancer.

Here's another interesting source on Sassanid archery -- http://www.caama.ca/kitab2/s45.html It's a Mamluk author describing archery. Archery was very important to the Mamluks, as it was to the Sassanids. Note that in the passage he desribes how a legendary Sassanid, Bustam, invented shower shooting -- basically filling an area with a HUGE volume of arrows. This is exactly the tactic that Roman and Byzantine sources describe the Sassanids as using.

Early in the wars between the romans and Sassanids, you also hear reference to cataphracts (very heavily armoured lancers). These charged Julian's legions after they fought off the elephants, for instance. There were at times certain elements of the Sassanid cavalry that used the lance, either instead of, or in addition to, the bow. But they were clearly in the minority. Some historians think that the cataphract lancers in early sources may have been supplied by the surviving houses of the Arsacid nobles, several of which were allowed to survive in the Sassanid empire. These lancers are described as having fought the Romans in earlier times, but after Julian references to them pretty much die out in Roman and Byzantine sources.

Maurikios' Strategikon is available from Amazon dot com in English translation. You should check it out -- it has lots of frank information about the Sassanid army. It was meant to be a handbook on how to fight them, and Maurikios doesn't pull any punches. My copy has the translator George Dennis, but there are probably multiple versions available. Cheers,Larry Dunn 13:12, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm too busy to respond right now, but I will in a few days.Khosrow II 20:27, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

THE MAP!!!

Hello, I am a history major with a concetration in western history; I am especially interested in great classical civilizations like Persia. Anyway, I really feel that this map needs to be removed, I remember the old one and I feel it was more accurate. According to this map the Sassanid Empire was as large as the Achaemenid Empire, which is simply not the case. All successive Persian Empires envied the first and struggled to reachieve it. I have been searching and have found nothing to support the claims this map makes. When the empire did achieve its hieght it was during a militart campaign that did bring it across anatolia to the walls of constantinople, but they were forced to retreat and there was never any permanent conquest. If I am wrong please provide a link to some credible sources for the map's claim's.

Obviously your major was the the history of Iran. The Sassanid Persian Empire did acheive the size of the Achaemenid Persian Empire (with the exception of Thrace) for a short period of time. The map is showing the empire at its greatest extent. Read The First Crusader and Will Durants History of Civilization. There are also many other scholarly sources that attest to this. Also, the Persian army camped across the Bospherus for ten years, and was never defeated, but only retreated after a peace deal was signed in 629 after the battle of Niniveh.Khosrow II 04:07, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

He's right, the map is very misleading. If you are going to include territory occupied during a military campaign, then you had better remove from the map the territories occupied by Heraklios at the same time -- deep, undefeated incursions into the middle of the Sassanid empire are what caused the mutiny of the army and the murder of Khusrau II. Heraklios made himself so much at home in Persian territory that he actually wintered his army there quite comfortably. I add my suggestion to the other user that the map previously featured be reinserted. The map should not show all of the traditional territory plus additional territory occupied during one campaign -- despite the caption, it is misleading and suggests a POV bias.Larry Dunn 15:27, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

The Sassanids held that territory for over 20 years. You cannot compare that to Heraclius's campaign, which restored the origional borders. Also, I will have you know that the Achaemenid Persian Empire only held egypt for 50 years, yet the maps shown represent its greatest extent.Khosrow II 22:17, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

And then it toppled, declining into anarchy before it was conquered in toto.

The map should represent the Sassanid Empire at its settled borders, borders it held with little fluctuation for centuries. Does it make sense to use a map showing the Empire when it was half-conquered by the Arabs? No. Nor does it make sense to show this map. At the very least, the map should be the empire's typical distribution in one color, and then the additional, very temporary territories in another color.Larry Dunn 22:30, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Scholarly maps that show the greatest extent of empires do not have a pre requisite that the empire maintained that piece of land for centuries. The Sassanid Empire held Yemen for over 100 years, the previous map did not show this. And the forces in Egypt, Anatolia, and Syria were not defeated militarily. Heraclius came in from the Black Sea and invaded from the north and went down and won the battle of Nineveh, which brougth about a peace deal. Holding territory for more than 20 years is a very significant amount of time.Khosrow II 22:59, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

The point is that some may wish to show the empire at its greatest extent, others may wish to show it about to be conquered. What can everyone agree on? That the empire was contained within certain boarders for most of its existence. That's why its better to show the average borders rather than the empire at its greatest extent (which gives the misleading impression that it was generally bigger than it really was).

Also keep in mind that the Sassanid armies were in fact defeated -- they left before Ninevah, due to the defeat of their allies in the west (Avars and Slavs) and marched East, where they were then defeated at Ninevah.

And the period between the Sassnaid conquest of Egypt (619) and Heraclius's occupation of parts of the Sassanid Empire via Armenia (622) was only three years -- so your map is only good for a tiny fragment of the time. unless you want to shade the portion that the Byzantines occupied. Not really representative to show a map of such a fluid situation.Larry Dunn 22:11, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I have read books about the subject, have you? Read The Last Crusader, which goes indepth about the wars between the Sassanids and the Byzantines. It is common to put an empires greatest extent on maps.Khosrow II 22:42, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Who is that snide comment directed at? Please nest your responses to give people an idea who you are referring to. If you are referring to me, I've already made it clear that I have read books on this subject (and not just a few cheesy Ospreys). So cite your source and indicate where my assertions are incorrect. Specify an author as well -- I've never even heard of a book about the Sassanid-Byzantine War called The Last Crusader, which hardly bodes well for it. (Why would a book about the Sassanid-Byzantine Wars be called "The Last Crusader?") Larry Dunn 23:08, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Read Will Durant and The Last Crusader (which is a book that brings up evidence as to why the first crusades were against Zoroastrianism, and not Islam. Half of the book is about the Byzantine Sassanid Wars).Khosrow II

I can find no record of any such book by Durant. Anyway, he was a philosopher first and a historian second -- he certainly was not a specialist in ancient history; he also strongly injected his on brand of moralism into his general guides to world history. Seriously, you really need to find better sources. Just as a start, on this particular topic I'd suggest you read:

Byzantium and the Early Islamic Conquests, by Walter Emil Kaegi,

History of the Byzantine State, by Georg Ostrogorsky, and especially

The Roman Eastern Frontier and the Persian Wars (Ad 226-363): a Documentary History, by Geoffrey Greatrex, Samuel N. C. Lieu, Michael H. Dodgeon Larry Dunn 15:36, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Will Durants History of Civilization series. Also, I dont even know what your trying to argue, the map is fine. Look at the map on the Roman Empire page and see how far that is extended in the Near East.Khosrow II 22:56, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Properly cite the source so the section you are referencing can be found. Also explain how Durant supports your point.

In any event, Durant had no expertise in ancient history or the history of the middle east or Central Asia. He wrote these "history of the entire world" books, and so he's sub-par (to put it mildly) as a source on a specialized topic. I hope he's not the only source you are relying on -- there are much better ones.

I'm not the only person to point out that the map is not fine. It is unrepresentative of the empire's history, and gives a misleading impression of its extent, to show gains during a set campaign. Had those gains been recognized by treaty, or lasted more than a few years, that would be different.

The result -- someone reading about the Sassanid empire (in, say, the fourth century) will log onto Wikipedia to see more and look at the map, perceiving that the Sassanids governed Egypt, which of course is untrue for the vast majority of the empire's existence. How helpful is such a map?

It's interesting that the map you cite as your source for the eastern borders does not show Khusrau II's successes in the middle of the Byzantine/Sassanid wars. Why do you think that is? Why did you alter it?

My suggestion is to have a map with more settled borders, and put the Khusrau II map on Khusrau's wiki page. Larry Dunn 16:02, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

No, the map is not misleading at all, it clearly says the date. Also, Will Durants description of the Sassanid Empire matches other sources I have read. This is all just your POV, there is nothing wrong with the map.Khosrow II 17:21, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

The map you link to above http://encyclopedia.quickseek.com/images/thumb/300px-Map_sassanid_empire.jpg does in fact not have Khusrau's western occupations during his war with the Byzantines. To reiterate, it's unhelpful to the general reader wanting to know more about the Sassanid empire to see a misleading map based on the campaigns of one ruler, which he didn't even retain in his own lifetime.

As to Durant, you brought him up, so please specify what he has to do with this discussion. Also correctly cite the source when you do so.

And when it comes to POV, frankly it seems pretty clear where the bias is here. I have no stake in this either way, except the truth.

What I'm doing here is giving you the opportunity to adjust the map before I do. Again, I'm not the only user who has questioned the map. I'm just the only one to persist. Larry Dunn 19:34, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

The map is not misleading at all, the date is clearly pointed out. The map is fine, you have no real argument other than the fact that you dont like it. Thats POV.Khosrow II 20:45, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I don't have any POV on this issue, which argument, based on your home page, it would be difficult for you to make. Larry Dunn 21:26, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I just want to make this short. Look at any historical empire and you see that the map is showing the greatest extent of that empire. So, I don't think the map is misleading, as it also states during what period the Sassanid reached it's greatest extent. Plus it has a much higher quality. I also like the idea of coloring the long lasted borders in one color and greatest extent in another. If that fixes the problem, I will contact Fabienkhan who is a expert in making map and tell him to do so. --Arad 05:56, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Conflict with Byzatine Empire

I was under the impression that the war with the Byzantine Empire culminating with the invasion by the Emperor Heracluis was the straw that broke the Sassanid's back. The article seems to gloss over this very important piece of history.

134.139.107.157 22:47, 15 November 2006 (UTC)Matt

No, that wasnt what did it. Heraclius didnt even defeat the majority of the Iranian army. All Heraclius did was make a straight dash to the capitol, which proved effective. The straw that broke both the Iranian and Byzantines backs' was the over 600 years of continuous war, of which the Arabs gladly took advantage of at the end, overruning both the Byzantines and Iranians, and eventually defeating the Sassanids.Khosrow II 00:58, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

That is incorrect. Heraclius did not make a "dash" for anything -- he spent years (622-626) campaigning in the East against the Persians, and he did finally destroy the main Sassanid army is a climactic battle, at Ninevah.

Here is a source that should be illustrative. http://www.deremilitari.org/resources/sources/theophanes.htm

Quote, Battle of Ninevah:

As for Chosroes, he collected all his armies and appointed Razates commander over them, a most warlike and brave man, whom he sent against Herakleios. The emperor meanwhile was burning the towns and villages of Persia and putting to the sword the Persians he captured. On 9 October of the 15th indiction he reached the land of Chamaetha, where he rested his army for one week. As for Razates, he came to Gazakos, in the emperor's rear, and followed him, while the Romans, in front, were destroying the crops. Trailing behind, like a hungry dog, he fed with difficulty on the emperor's crumbs. On 1 December the emperor reached the Great Zabas river, which he crossed and encamped near the town of Nineveh. Following him, Razates, too, came to the ford and, going another three miles downstream, found another ford which he crossed. The emperor sent out the commander Baanes with a small body of picked soldiers; the latter encountered a company of Persians and, after killing their captain, brought back his head and his sword, which was all of gold. He killed many more and made twenty-six captive, among whom was the sword-bearer of Razates. This man announced to the emperor that Razates was intending to give battle on orders from Chosroes, who had sent him 3,000 armed men; but these had not yet arrived. When the emperor had been informed of this, he sent ahead his camp equipment and himself followed, seeking a place in which to give battle before the 3,000 had joined the enemy. And when he had found a plain suitable for fighting, he addressed his troops and drew them up in battle order. Upon arriving there, Razates also drew up his army in three dense formations and advanced on the emperor. Battle was given on Saturday, 12 December. The emperor sallied forward in front of everyone and met the commander of the Persians, and, by God's might and the help of the Theotokos, threw him down; and those who had sallied forth with him were routed. Then the emperor met another Persian in combat and cast him down also. Yet a third assailed him and struck him with a spear, wounding his lip; but the emperor slew him, too. And when the trumpets had sounded, the two sides attacked each other and, as a violent battle was being waged, the emperor's tawny horse called Dorkon, was wounded in the thigh by some infantryman who struck it with a spear. It also received several blows of the sword on the face, but, wearing as it did a cataphract made of sinew, it was not hurt, nor were the blows effective. Razates fell in battle, as did the three divisional commanders of the Persians, nearly all of their officers, and the greater part of their army.

(My emphasis.)

The hammering that the Persian army took in the wars with Heraklios, particularly at Ninevah, left the state pretty much in anarchy, leaving the door wide open to the Arab conquest. Larry Dunn 21:26, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Thats not true. Shahbaraz with the main Sassanid Spah were absent and Heraclius essentially fought a rather small Sassanid Spah. Look at Cambridge History of Iran. Amir85 07:19, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Also to Sassanids bad luck, another prominent Sassanid Eran Spahbod, Shahin, died untimely after a minor illness. Amir85 10:57, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

How can you claim it's not true when I have just provided a primary source, quoted verbatim, saying it is? The source says that Khusrau collected all his armies, not that the force fought was a "rather small one." Can you provide a primary Persian source that contradicts it? Or at least quote the Cambridge History. Larry Dunn 17:09, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Thats what it says in "Cambridge History of Iran vol III" and "Zarrinkub's Ruzgaran: tarikh-i Iran az aghz ta saqut saltnat Pahlvi" and all the other sources I used for writing Sassanid's article. I even checked it with an UCLA "Sassanid Studies" Phd graduate. In all of them it is clearly mentioned that Shahbaraz along with the main Persian Spah remained neutral after a treaty between him and Heraclius and also Shahin's sudden death which was a massive military loss for Sassanids at that time. You better double check your source(s) (go for the book since you can't verify the accuracy of that website) about the status of Spahs led by Shahbaraz and Shahin. --Amir85 20:02, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

It's an exact citation of the standard translation of Theophanes. Frankly, you shouldn't question the veracity of a full verbatim citation of a source when you haven't even given proper page cites for your sources yet. By the way, "talking to a grad student" is original research, which is prohibted by wikipedia policy, so anything the grad student told you should be deleted from the article.

Anyway, no one claims that Shahrbaraz was the general defeated at Nineveh. What you are asserting is that the army defeated there was not "the main army," but a "rather small force" under an "inferior general." What is the proof of that? Persian losses were by some sources to have been 50,000 at Ninevah, not exactly a "rather small" army. It's time to get a little more specific with your sources. While you're at it, could you explain the magic that the presence of Shahrbaraz and Shahin would have worked -- after all, Heraklios defeated both generals repeatedly before Nineveh.

On Shahrbaraz's supposed defection, take a look at a good historiography of the war and you will see that Shahrbaraz's conversations with Heraklios probably never happened as cited by the Muslim historians -- it is probably a conflation with a meeting that Shahrbaraz actually did have with Heraklios after Ninevah, in 628-9. The best historiography of the war is East Rome, Sasanian Persia And the End of Antiquity: Historiographical and Historical Studies By J. D. Howard-Johnston. The relevant pages are Chapter VI, pages 12-14. I recommend you review it. Larry Dunn 23:01, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Update -- I've checked the Cambridge History of Iran, and you have not summarized the section on Nineveh correctly. Yarshater says nothing about Shahrbaraz making a secret treaty with Heraklios before Ninevah. He also says nothing about the army defeated by Heraklios being a "rather small one" or Shahrbaraz's army being the "main army." Check page 170 of volume III.

I suspect this means that the entire article should really be reviewed a bit more closely, and I will start doing that soon. Larry Dunn 23:06, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Thats great, someone wants to review the whole article! These are speculations regarding Shahrbaraz's actions:

• 1. Zarrinkub: "Shahrbaraz made a secret treaty with Heraklios before Ninevah after Heraklios' agents convinced him to deflect.... he along with the main Persian spah remained neutral therefore turning tide of war further in favor of Byzantine."
• 2. Cambridge History of Iran: "[Heraclius] camped near the ancient ruins of Nineveh, where in December he defeated a Persian Army which had followed him. Khosrau at once ordered the recall of the Persian Army, commanded by Shahbaraz, from Chalcedon. But Heraclius moved on Dastagird, where Khosrau had a palace, and was waiting for him. Khosrau, however, lost heart and fled to Ctesiphon, while Heraclius occupied and plundered Dastagird.....meanwhile Khosrau was looking for scapegoats for his defeat and hence decided to execute Shahrbaraz. Before he could carry out this plan a revolt broke out and Khosrau was imprisoned and murdered at the end of February 628. ..... The new ruler [Kavad II] at once sought peace with Heraclius and agreed to recall Sasanian troops from Egypt, Palestine, Syria, Asia Minor and western Mesopotamia and to observe the pre-war

boundaries." (p.170)

Both "primary" sources clearly indicate that Heraclius did not encounter the elite Persian army commanded by the greatest Spahbod of Sassanid Empire at the time and the battle of Nineveh was fought with a rather small and ineffective army consisting of mostly levies rather than professional troops and Savaran who where either in the Shahrbaraz's spah or garrisoning the newly conquered vast territories. --Amir85 04:39, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Do you know what a primary source is?

Your summary of the two sources (which are secondary sources), is inaccurate. Neither source indicates 1) that Shahrbaraz's army was "elite," 2) that he was the greatest general of the Persian army, or 3) that Razates' army was "rather small and ineffective." Zarrinkub claims (according to you) that the army was the "main" army. I do not have a transaltion of Zarrinkub, but let's assume your translation is correct. Even then, that's as far as you get.

So, how do we deal with that? The two sources contradict each other. Zarrinkub tells the old story of the defection of Shahrbaraz, which, as the historiography I cited above indicates, probably never happened (and is probably a conflation by Arab historians of the meeting that he had with Heraklios after Khusrau fell). He also says that Shahrbaraz's army was the "main army" and its defection caused the defeat of the Sassanids. The Cambridge history makes no such claim.

The difference is easy to explain. Zarrinkub was basically a court historian for the Shah, whose agents tightly controlled what could be written about Persian history, so it's no surprise he downplays the vanquishing of the Persian army by attributing it to treason. The Cambridge history does not indicate that this happened. The Cambridge history is a more trustworthy source because it was not authored under tight state control. It also tallies with an eyewitness account of the campaign, by Theophanes, who claims that Khusrau "gathered all his armies" and fought a great battle with Heraklios. Larry Dunn 15:36, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

1) that Shahrbaraz's army was "elite": The two armies led by Shahbaraz and Shahin where the main "elite" Spahs of the Sassanid Empire since the northeastern frontiers had been pacified by Bahram Chobin's campaign in 590 therefore Sassanids was able to concentrate large number of "high-quality" troops on their Byzantine frontier. Without such experienced troops neither of these generals could have been able to defeat and conquer vast territories of Byzantine Empire. When they besieged big cities like Damascus or Jerusalem or Alexandria, they were able to capture these cities in a very short time or defeat Byzantine armies successively.

2) that he was the greatest general of the Persian army: Spahbod Farrokhan "Shahbaraz" (as you know Shahr (realm) + Baraz (Boar)) was the spahbod who had conquered nearly all of the Byzantine Asian possessions including Jerusalem and Alexandria in short siege. Far more successes than any of other Sassanid Spahbods at the first phase of Khosrau-Heraclius wars i.e. Shahin.

3) that Razates' army was "rather small and ineffective." I think according to C.H.I. it's suffice to say that Razates' army was a Persian army rather than the Persian army. Theophanes was a Byzantine historian and you know well the biases and exaggerations a historian would use against his country's archenemy. It is far better to compare his version with Persian version (written by Tabari) or Arab historians then go for conclusion.

4) Zarrinkub was basically a court historian for the Shah: Maybe that was the reason why he was one the authors of C.H.I. vol 4. --Amir85 19:35, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Answers:

1) Please cite a source that says so specifically. Don't draw conclusions in the article unless there are facts to support them.

2) Please cite a source to indicate that Shahrbaraz's force was considered by contemporaries to be elite (substantially better than other Persian armies). Again, don't draw conclsuions on your own. Cite a source.

3) This is another example of drawing a conclusion based on speculation. There's no difference between "an army" and "the army in ... Chalcedon" (you didn't include that latter part of the term). There was only one Persian army in Chalcedon at that time, hence the term "the army," yet there were several Persian armies in existance at the time, hence Razates's army is "an army." There's no conclusion to be drawn from that.

4) Perhaps that's why he was only one, vetted by others, instead of the sole author.

In the meantime, as these references are based on speculation, and as the historiography I cited above calls into question the truth of the legend about Shahrbaraz's supposed treachery, I have edited the page accordingly, to remove referenes to these assertions, which appear to be soft-pedalling and rationalizations for the defeat of the Persians in the war. Let's establish that these items are true by a proponderance of the evidence before any of them are re-inserted. Larry Dunn 21:54, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

As far as I see, Amir is pretty much right. The conflict between Iran and Byzantine weakened both Empires and arabs took advantage. Plus Zarinkub is a very reliable source as it is one of the best documented history book of the time. Arad 22:53, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Should we perhaps hear from people off the Iran wiki project? Please support your argument. Consensus of histories, both secondary and primary, does not agree with you. I have provided direct quotes and sources, in English language sources. Even the Cambridge history does not support Amir's assertions. Larry Dunn 00:09, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm just saying Zarinkub is one of the most reliable source you can find about the Iranian history. --Arad 06:00, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Deleted Speculation in Sassanid Army Section

The section previously asserted that had this-and-that happened (or not happened), the Asawaran would probably have defeated the Arab invasions. This was deleted as complete speculation. Larry Dunn 21:41, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

--

Larry Dunn, while I must laud you for showcasing a good deal of knowledge in parts of Sassanian history, this previous request of yours is bound to disturb many sensibilities within Iranology:

Can you provide a primary Persian source that contradicts it?

Considering the cultural calamity that Iran endured during the Islamic invasions, which naturally includes destruction of Iranian literati, on the basis of the calpih's (Umar ibn Al-Khattab) orders, I think you out of all persons should realize the ludicrousness of asking for primary sources, in particular contemporary sources. Now, I agree that Khosrow's map should be dedicated to a certain placeholder showcasing the greatest extent of the Sassanian Persian Empire, however your rather blind reliance on Byzantine sources is nonetheless interesting. To assume that Heraclius was the one who broke the back of the Persian Empire is a highly wishful notion, but a false one. By the time of the Islamic invasions of Iran, the sources, provided by Al-Baladhuri and Al-Tabari depict an efficient military machine, again, subject to sometimes grossly exaggerated figures. Heraclius? Heraclius had basically nothing to lose, hence his daredevilry. The Byzantine Empire had been confined to being a mere enclave in Constantinople. Calling a flanking move over to the "soft shoulder" of Persia is hardly the same as "breaking the back" of your enemy. The "breaking of Persia" came during the Night of Clamour at the battle of Al Qadisiyya. The battle of Nineve could be interpreted as rather closely contested vis-a-vis to Al Qadisiyya. If the Byzantines did break the moral back of the Persian Empire, or whatever silly metaphor you'd like to use, then one has to wonder what the Byzantines were thinking at Al-Firad requesting help from a Persian outpost.

Also, Zarrinkoub's "Two centuries of silence" is one of Iranology's finest resources regarding the Islamic incursions of Iran, as it does not require any pre-requisites to the novices of history, and with it has a basis on mainly "Islamic sources". It should be regarded as a national treasure, at the same level as Ferdôwsî's "Shâhnâme" irrespective if Zarrinkoub was a court historian or not. If you are implying that Zarrinkoub has retro-actively rewritten history, I demand that you bring your evidence, because you are implying unscholarly offences. Pan-Turanists and Pan-Arabists have engaged in such practice, but only because proof has been showcased against them. Now, I do not think this should be news to man of your stature, but Byzantine sources are not excused from national bias, and of course, no one has implied anything otherwise, but in respect to the context, I advise you to be careful with what you are in agreement with.

Also, this charge of "speculation" on your behalf, originated from the claims of Dr. Kaveh Farrokh, author of a select few articles as well as Osprey's "Sassanian Elite Cavalry". Most of the accounts regarding the battles between muslims and Iranians depict infantry clashes, specifically the Iranians being "chained". Now, Peter Wilcox, author of Osprey's "Parthian and Sassanian armies" claims that "evidence of foot-links were found near the site of Nahâvand", while a vast majority dismisses the Arabic claims as being merely poetic as it seems to apply cavalry (!) as well. Only a few times cavalry is mentioned, but the focus of attention on the usage of cavalry seems to be emphasized on the muslims. So technically, you are correct in calling it speculation, but I do think that the readers would generally like a little perspective as well. What could have saved the empire from the Islamic incursions? The late Prof. Shapur Shahbazi too claimed that if the Persians had utilized more light cavalry, than to rely on the old, (too) regimentalized system, they could have countered the swift muslims. Speculation? Perhaps, but speculations made by scholars who knew exactly what they were talking about. With a minor rephrases the alleged "speculations" could rather be turned into the analysis of the flaws of the late Sassanid army in respect to the Islamic invasions. It's after all what osprey books have tried to do for decades, and no one dismisses them on the ground of speculation. If the Persians lost because they lacked a certain something, I for one think it is note-worthy, and not simply dismissed as "Had they done this or that the tide could have turned". I mean, you do understand that, right? --

The Persian Cataphract 19:45, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

An Osprey book is not a peer-reviewed history -- it is a little booklet for people who play toy soldiers. Many of these books are terrible histories, because they are not scholarly and are not peer-reviewed.

Even if they were, speculation is speculation. If this had not happened, these would have done this is purely POV advocacy. We have no way of knowing what would have happened had the Byzantine wars not happened, any more than we know if my brother would like cheese if I had a brother.

You misquote me on primary sources. I have not asked for primary sources on this issue, as anyone reading my comment above can see -- you took that quote from a different discussion. Even if a primary source said so, it would still be speculation. Be a Persian cultural advocate on your own time -- this page is a history page. History reports what happened, not what would have happened had X not occurred. That is POV advocacy, and has no place here. Larry Dunn 00:19, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Hold your horses, Mr. Dunn. Now, I can understand the natural caution against Osprey books, and indeed most people do buy them for the purpose of using the colour plates for whatever the purpose, to extract colours, ripping texture, whatever, that is not the issue. I can even vouch for some utterly terrible illustrated history books. However, some Osprey's are not even meant to be mere books of picture. Scholarly? They are scholastic, and have always been meant to serve as scholastic material. You probably do not need a definition of what "scholastic" is.

Mr. Dunn, this isn't economy we are dealing with, but history. I'd advise against comparing apples with oranges. Speculation is the path into retro-actively rewriting history, and quite frankly I do not think that neither Dr. Farrokh nor the late Shahbazi had in their interest to deceive anyone, besides providing basic analysis on certain military units. Knowing that a certain event triggers a certain consequence and doing a proper analysis on what could have been different is perhaps one of the core principles in studying and appreciating history. It widens the understanding of the course of history and allows for some astute estimates. Prof. Shahbazi did not merely speculate when he claimed that a more profound usage of light cavalry mercenaries would have given the regimentalized Sassanian armies more flexibility. That is not speculation, Mr. Dunn. That is common sense and anyone, including those who only read mere "toy-soldier"-manuals like Osprey books would appreciate the flexibility of light cavalry and also take example of earlier history to prove how versatile lightly armed horsemen truly can be. Prof. Shahbazi was perhaps the pioneer in doing research regarding the pre-islamic Iranian dynasties, and he did much to contribute to the procession of the 2500th anniversary of Iranian monarchy. I do not care about your brother or the Byzantine wars, because quite frankly, they are not even relevant to the possible usage of light cavalry or the higher figures of the Âzadân nobility, in which both scholars I have found to have perfectly justified their claims. In fact, to emphasize the fallacy in actually comparing, in military matters little if anything is left for luck. It is a matter of strategy. Do whatever you like, Mr. Dunn, but my objection remains as initially given. There have been many a military analysis made and I thought that providing the information in the most objective way possible was the priority here. I do not quite understand your motives.

I did not misquote you. My apologies, perhaps I should have made an entirely new headline rather paging you, but considering that a good deal of this entry already pertains to this alleged issue of speculation, I chose to rather be comprehensive. Here is the quote in its context:

How can you claim it's not true when I have just provided a primary source, quoted verbatim, saying it is? The source says that Khusrau collected all his armies, not that the force fought was a "rather small one." Can you provide a primary Persian source that contradicts it? Or at least quote the Cambridge History. Larry Dunn 17:09, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Mr. Dunn, again I shall repeat my point, even if it be from "another discussion". The mere demand of a Persian primary source is disturbing, and if anything gives the impression of that you are taking advantage of the lack of specifically indigenous sources, normally expected to be contemporary, for the sake of supporting Byzantine sources. Do you actually believe from a logical point that Chosroës truly gathered all his forces to face Heraclius at Nineve? What would the Byzantines know about it? Did they possibly have agents from the very north-eastern edge of the Persian empire, surveying all possible garrisons? Or is it, god forbid, the same hyperbole we have seen since the age of Herodotus? Or do you too believe that 300 Spartans and 700 Thespians held ground against millions of Persians at the Hot Gates? --The Persian Cataphract 01:10, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

You wrote: The mere demand of a Persian primary source is disturbing, and if anything gives the impression of that you are taking advantage of the lack of specifically indigenous sources, normally expected to be contemporary, for the sake of supporting Byzantine sources.

Primary sources are the most important sources in history. If you do not have primary sources, you should tread very carefully in making statements. This is the problem with Iranian history on wikipedia - the lack of primary sources is used as a rationale for NPOV assertions by Persian history proponents, whereas primary sources are decried as "propagandistic!"

If you are going to challenge a primary sources, go ahead, but you'd better have something to put up against it, preferably a primary source. You can't challenge it because the statement it makes is displeasing to your ego, your ethnic pride. Primary sources continue to be the most important sources for ancient history. Read the wikipedia policy on verifiability -- lack of verifiability means that a statement should not be made. Lack of verifiability does not mean, "speculate to your heart's content." So if you want to challenge a primary source, verify your challenge.

As to Osprey books, you are incorrect that they are "scholastic." They are even less scholastic than they are scholarly. They are not serious, peer-reviewed histories. They are booklets for toy soldier collectors, and should not be cited as serious historical sources.Larry Dunn 16:36, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Help - there is a pornographic image in the middle of the article

Please someone take this vandalized picture out. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 142.165.246.30 (talk) 22:50, 8 December 2006 (UTC).

Sassnid Map (To Larry Dunn)

Please if you want to change the map of this article, let's discuss it here first. Please stop reverting it to the way you want. First of all, in any encyclopedia, we use the map of the greatest extent of any empire, Example Roman Empire, Achaemenid Empire, etc. to show the boundaries. And the max extent of the Sassanid Empire is the current map. If you have any explanation, I'm happy to hear it. --Arad 22:56, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Read this discussion page and you will see that the map revision has been exhaustively discussed. It has been discussed here, and I have afforded the other Iran project workers the opportunity to come to some sort of comprimise. I let it sit for weeks. No effort at coming to a settlement. So I have tried one myself. The info box should reflect the settled borders of the empire. Then, temporary conquests can be reflected in the section on that part of the empire's history. The Sassanid empire collapsed just a few years after this part of its history, so it is completely misleading to show those borders as the borders of the empire at the top of a page that describes the entire history of the empire. Larry Dunn 00:15, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Late Antiquity

Sorry if this sounds like a nit-picky issue to other people, but I am a historian of Late Antiquity and my concentration is the Sasanian history and as such, I am a bit sensitive to the issues that might be considered unimportant by most normal people. The statement that the Sasanian Empire matched the whole of Late Antiquity (second paragraph) is misleading as there is not consensus as to when Late Antiquity started and when it ended. In the Iranian sense, it certainly started before the Sasanians (with the accession of the Parthian Walash I) and ended later (751, fall of the Umayyads), so that sentence is uselessly suggestive...--Khodadad 02:21, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Post-conquest era

There is a paragraph about this era.

The local population either willingly accepted Islam, thus escaping from various restrictions imposed on non-Muslims, including the requirement to pay a special poll tax (jizya),[24] or were forced to convert by the invading armies. Invaders destroyed the Academy of Gundishapur and its library, burning piles of books. Most Sassanid records and literary works were destroyed. A few that escaped this fate were later translated into Arabic and later to Modern Persian.[15] During the Islamic invasion many Iranian cities were destroyed or deserted, palaces and bridges were ruined and many magnificent imperial Persian gardens were burned to the ground.[25] Says Persian poet, Ferdowsi of their downfall, in commending the Sassanids

This part should be improved on the basis of historical works of historians like Zarrinkub,etc.

Conversion to Islam

There is written: The local population either willingly accepted Islam, thus escaping from various restrictions imposed on non-Muslims, including the requirement to pay a special poll tax (jizya), or were forced to convert by the invading armies.

As Petroshevsky describes in his history on the basis of the report of Muslim Geographists this conversion took places at least one hundred years later. At the first Islamic century Umayyids didn't let people to convert to Islam to prevent reduction of taxes. Their Pun-Arabism and Anti-Persianism don't let Persians attract to Islam. --Sa.vakilian(t-c) 08:33, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I narrate some part of Persian translation of "Islam in Iran". You can find English version of this book (Petrushevsky, I. P.,(1985) Islam in Iran , State University of New York Press , ISBN-13: 978-0887060700)

«در سال 651م. شاهنشاهی ساسانی سقوط کرد... در جریان تسخیر ایران نواحی بسیاری زیان دیدند و اسیران فراوان از مردان و زنان و مردم صلحجوی شهرها و دهات به بردگی برده شدند. ولی بسیاری از شهرها و دهقانان(زمینداران) با سرداران عرب »عهد بسته، مطیع ایشان شدند و پرداخت خراج را بر عهده گرفتند... علی الرسم این پیمانها آزادی اعمال دینی ساکنان(زرتشتی، مسیحی و یهود )را تضمین می کردند و مردم محل در عوض متعهد می شدند حکومت دولت عرب و مسلمان را بر خویشتن بشناسند و بدان خیانت نورزند... یکی از مهمترین عواقب و نتایج فتوحات عرب در ایران همانا انتشار دین فاتحان -یعنی اسلام- ذز میان ایرانیان بود. اسلام بتدریج دین پیشین زرتشتی را از ایران طرد کرد و گرچه مسیحیت را کاملا از میدان به در نکرد ولی انتشار آن دین را محدود و متوقف ساخت. اسلام این موفقیت ها را به یکباره کسب نکرد. گرچه در اواسط قرن هفتم میلادی برخی از ایرانیان که بیشتر دهقانان و ساکنان شهرها بوده اند اسلام آوردند. در آغاز امر این تغییر دین را چنین تلقی می کردند که نومسلمان پس از قبول اسلام با دین و ملت خویش قطع علاقه کرده، عرب می شود. ولی چون در میان خود عرب ها و حتی تازیانی که به ایران نقل مکان کرده بودند، تقسیمات قبیله ای محفوظ مانده بود، هر یک از ایرانیان تازه مسلمان می بایست به یکی از قبایل عربی منسوب و پیوسته گردند، ولی عضو متساوی الحقوق آن قبیله نمی شدند، بلکه «مولای »آن می شدند. گرچه این وضع خلاف اصلی بود که محمد درباره برابری مسلمانان صرفنظر از اصل و تبارشان اعلام کرده بود. اما باز این رسم مدت مدیدی میان اعراب باقی و برقرار بود... در زمان خلفای اموی (661-750)اسلام به کندی و سستی در ایران رواج یافت... با این حال در قرن چهارم(دهم میلادی)هنوز عده کثیری زرتشتی در ایران می زیستند. از گفته اصطخری جغرافیدان معلوم می شود چنین استنتاج می شود که در زمان وی(نیمه قرن دهم) در فارس «آتش پرستان»[زرتشتیان]اکثریت ساکنان را تشکیل می دادند و هیچ شهر، دهکده و ناحیه بی آتشگاه زرتشتیان نبوده است. در نواحی کرانه دریای خزر تا نیمه دوم قرن سوم هجری دین زرتشت تفوق داشت. برعکس در خراسان [که از سرزمین های عربیدورتر است] در نیمه اول قرن سوم دهقانان و اکثر مردم مسلمان بودند... وضع ایران در قرن دهم میلادی چنین بوده است. ولی در قرن یازدهم اکثریت عظیم مردم کشور مسلمان بودند. در تالیفات ایران اخبار مربوط به زرتشتیان از آن زمان به بعد ندرتا دیده می شود. ابن البلخی مولف تاریخ و جفرافیای «فارس نامه» که کتاب خود را در قرن دوازدهم میلادی نوشته از زرتشتیان در فارس یادی نمی کند. در آغاز قرن شانزدهم میلادی فقط عده کمی زرتشتی در کرمان و واحه یزد و برخی جاهای دیگر مثلا در گبرآباد نزدیک اصفهان مانده بود...» --Sa.vakilian(t-c) 08:53, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Cultural legacy

There is written:Most Sassanid records and literary works were destroyed.

As written in Al-Fehrest there were numerous Arabic translations of Sassanid's literature in Baqdad library in 4AH.[3] There were the other great libraries in Balkh, Rey, Neyshabur and dome other cities at that time. Some of these books destroyed during Mongul invasion or later. We don't know the most of them are destroyed at that time or remained until 5th century and absorbed in the Muslim cultures. Because we don't have a list of all of their works. --Sa.vakilian(t-c) 08:33, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I narrate some part of Zarrinkub's book("The history of Iran after Islam") He says about Beit-Al-Hikma(House of Wisdom):

این بیت الحکمه را مأمون در بغداد ظاهرا در مجاورت قصر خلیفه و تا حدی به تقلید از دستگاه جندی شاپور به وجود آورد. در این مرکز مهم فرهنگی کتاب های فلسفی و علمی که فرستادگان مأمون از بلاد روم فراز آورده بودند به عربی نقل می شد. کتابخانه ای وسیع و مهم نیز داشت که در آن غیر از کتاب های یونانی و آنچه مأمون از بلاد روم فراز آورده بود کتب پهلوی نیز فراوان بود. در واقع هنوز درین روزگار مأمون از آنچه یزدگرد سوم در آخرین روزهای خویش به خراسان برد ه بود در مرو کتابخانه ای بود که عتّابی -یک شاعر عرب- برای آنکه از آنها بهره جوید از عراق به خراسان می رفت...(ص 437)

This great library was destroyed during Mongol invasion 1258CE.--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 09:29, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Political legacy

As Javad Tabatabaee describes their political legacy is remained and absorbed by Chaliphate. Especially Abbasids tried to establish similar state. --Sa.vakilian(t-c) 08:33, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Civilization

There is written:During the Islamic invasion many Iranian cities were destroyed or deserted, palaces and bridges were ruined and many magnificent imperial Persian gardens were burned to the ground.

This idea is questionable. Most of the cities of Iran except the cities which were in the west were remained for several centuries. The western cities were declined because of attraction of Kufa, Basra and later Baqdad and Samarra. There were clear differences between Arab and Mongol invasions. --Sa.vakilian(t-c) 08:33, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I narrate some part of Zarrinkub's book("The history of Iran after Islam") He says about building of Baghdad:

شهر به شکل دایزه بود. شکلی که در بنای حران و همدان و دارابجزد نیز به کار رفته بودو بر خلاف مشهور تازگی نداشت. چنانکه که مخصوصا از جهات مختلف این شهر جدید منصور دارابجرد فارس را به خاطر می آورد. قسمتی از مصالح را نیز از مداین کسری که رفته رفته متروک شده بود آوردند... گویی بعد از یک قرن خاموشی و فراموشی بار دیگر مداین - اما این دفعه اندکی دورتر از جای سابق- در سرزمین عراق پدید آمده بود و سلطنت ساسانیان - اما این بار با نام و زبان عربی- مثل ققنوس از زیر خاکستر و ویرانی ها سربرآورده بود.(ص 415)

Please read page 100 to 120 of "Sketches from East" which is written by Noeldeke.--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 09:18, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm really really busy till the end of this weekend, after that I'll try ti look into all of these objections one by one. My references will be Cambridge History of Iran vol 3 and vol 4 in addition to the previous references. Amir85 02:01, 20 April 2007 (UTC)