Talk:Battle of Samarra
|WikiProject Greece / Byzantine|
|WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome|
I added a "territory" category to the Warbox. And included that Jovian, as a result of this disastrous battle was forced to cede districts on the Tigris and Nisibis.--Arsenous Commodore 20:26, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Why this article was so severely vandalized?
1. WikiProject Afghanistan reference was entirely groundless (why someone keeps putting this reference in unrelated battles, is beyond me). I removed it.
2. First and last paragraph were severely distorted and that action seems completely intentional. Take a look at this : The battle of Samarra took place in 363 after the invasion of Sassanid Persia (Iran) by the Romans. Despite this, Roman Emperor Julian the Apostate was killed in this battle. Despite what? Or this : Julian's successor, Emperor Jovian, made a successful delay ploy by promising Shapur that he would surrender a total of five Roman provinces, including strategic cities such as Nisibis. Jovian never delivered on this humiliating treaty.. Of cource (and as Arvand already said before me), we all know from reliable sources that strategically important districts and fortresses like Nisibis were ceded to Iranians. I'll try to fix all these.Dipa1965 (talk) 13:45, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Further work needed
The article needs citations (esp. for the numbers of soldiers involved).
It may also need perhaps moving to another title. For how do we know for sure that the vicinity of modern Samarra was the place of battlefield? In the article for Julian the Apostate it is mentioned that the battle took place near Maranga (where a major battle between the two opponents was fought a few days before). That was correct, if we accept Ammianus narrative.Dipa1965 (talk) 13:45, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
To be or not to be "decisive"
This was not a decisive Persian victory for two reasons:
- It was just a skirmish. A skirmisg cannot be called decisive.
- A simple military event (especially a skirmish as in this case) is usually not the reason for a decisive change of balance. The death of Julian at Samarra was not the reason for the catastrophic outcome of his expedition: it would be so even if Julian was not killed there.
I think that the article becomes more and more single-sourced (Iranica) because this is the only way to prove a "decisive", "strategic", whatever, victory. No need for such a pov pushing. I will come back with other scholarly sources who do not support that view.--Dipa1965 (talk) 10:12, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
R. Browning says (see citation in article) that Jovian led his army to the left bank of Tigris under continuous fighting. Therefore the peace treaty that followed was *not* the direct result of this skirmish. Actually, Iranica does not support the latter: it only says that "Julian was soundly defeated" meaning from a strategic point of view. This is entirely correct since his campaign led to a catastrophic failure. Please do not add a disproportionate value to this skirmish (or, at least, discuss here first). Thank you.--Dipa1965 (talk) 22:50, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
After checking the sources that supposedly support the "decisive Sassanian victory" in this battle I found the following:
- Source 1 (Beate Dignas, Engelbert Winter, Rome and Persia in Late Antiquity: Neighbours and Rivals). You can check page 34 (pages 35-37 are not related to Julian) in Google Books. It simply says that Julian's advanced ended in catastrophe. He was wounded in battle and died. No strategic Sassanian victory. On the contrary, on p.92, the book explicitly says that Romans defeated the Persians in the Bbattle of Samarra.
- Source 2 (iranicaonline): After the emperor Julian’s march to Ctesiphon in 363 the Romans were soundly defeated. The battle of Samarra is not mentioned. The reader can conclude that the word defeated refers to the final outcome of Julian's expedition.
- Source 3 (iranicaonline): So far this is the only source that seems to support the defeat of the Romans in this battle (albeit Samarra's name is missing)
So far, modern sources, in their majority, do not support the theory that this battle was a defeat to the Romans. Surely they agree that the outcome of the expdition was catastrophic, due to the scorched earth tactics and the Iranian harassment of the Roman army.--Dipa1965 (talk) 16:45, 28 October 2014 (UTC)