Talk:Roman–Parthian War of 58–63

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article Roman–Parthian War of 58–63 has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

GA Review[edit]


This review is transcluded from Talk:Roman–Parthian War of 58–63/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Hello! I'll have the review up as soon as I can. Cheers! —the_ed17— 16:53, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:
    B. MoS compliance:
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
    the very end of the review is where I address this
    C. No original research:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    B. Focused:
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
    hmmm almost some pro-Corbulo bias vs. anti-Paetus-bias? It's not major, however, so it won't stand in the way of this article's path to GA.
    It is actually rather a problem of our sources: Tacitus (and Frontinus) were very pro-Corbulo, who is portrayed as the model general. And the thing is, well, Paetus lost, and lost stupidly. That never went down well with Roman historians.
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
    B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
    On hold.


  • The lead should be extended to three paragraphs per WP:LEAD.
  • First sentence in the lead...what two empires? (Some people might ask that, you never know...)
  • Include somewhere that Nero is an emperor of Rome please!
I think it's OK now.


  • Any chance of extending this a bit? I'm not asking for new information, but it just seems like we go 35 years in 2 sentences...
Well, everything was pretty much status quo under Augustus, it was only after he and Tiberius died that the Parthians began moving again in Armenia. There isn't really that much to write there, but I have expanded on the events of the early 50s AD.
That's why I asked, I didn't know. =)

Diplomatic maneuvers and preparations[edit]

  • First sentence ("Corbulo was given control over two provinces, Cappadocia and Galatia, with propraetorial and later proconsular imperium.[5]")... Whoa. Confusing for the person who does not know history (I may know it, but another person might be link, "Cappadocia and Galatia?? What are those?") and confusing for the person who doesn't know Latin...
    • I know that there are links, but give a short mini-summary in the article please! You don't want people leaving your article, right? =)
Yes, one often forgets that others may not know the context as well. I have actually come across it many times when reading other WP articles, which makes me both more and less guilty, I suppose :).
Come on now, get with the program!

Outbreak of the war — The Roman offensive[edit]

  • What is Primus pilus? (Yes, it's linked...same reasoning above)
  • This paragraph is jumbled...

Despite this misadventure, having drilled his army for two years, Corbulo was now ready. His army was composed of three legions (III Gallica and VI Ferrata from Syria and IV Scythica)[13] and a large number of auxiliaries and allied contingents from the Eastern client kings like Aristobulus of Lesser Armenia and Polemon II of Pontus. At the same time, Vologases was unable to support his brother, as he faced a serious revolt by the Hyrcanians[11] and raids by the Dahae and Sacae nomads. Corbulo tried to protect the pro-Roman settlements from attack, and in turn retaliated against the Parthian supporters: given that Tiridates avoided confrontation in a pitched battle, Corbulo divided his force, so that they could attack several places simultaneously. In addition, the Romans instructed Kings Antiochus IV of Commagene and Pharasmanes I of Iberia to raid Armenia, while an alliance was concluded with the Moschoi, a tribe living in eastern Armenia.[11]

    • It goes back and forth between the Parthians and the Romans...just seems confusing to me...
Hmm, about the primus pilus, I am not so sure, I mean, if I write "... primus pilus (first centurion of a legion)", it looks rather ugly, and it kinda defeats the purpose of the wikilink, does it not? It is evident that this is a title, and of no consequence to the understanding of the historical narrative as such. As for the jumbled and confusing nature of the paragraph, I hope I have improved it.
Okay, that's fine—one description isn't going to hold up a GAN.

Fall of Artaxata[edit]

  • Fine.

Fall of Artaxata[edit]

  • "second city"? What does this mean?
  • Who is Vologases again?
  • What does "which was ruthlessly dealt with" mean?
points 1) & 2): clarified; point 3): the usual stuff, i.e. burning, pillaging, mass executions... Tacitus mentions some discontent, and I think Goldsworthy mentions or implies some sporadic resistance. I don't have his book available right now, however, and so I can't check on it. I've therefore removed the relevant sentence.

The Parthian counterattack[edit]

  • Fine.

(skipping good sections...)

Corbulo's return and peace settlement[edit]

  • "following the route opened up by Lucullus over a hundred years before"...what route?
Beats me. Tacitus (our main and practically only source) says "He then pursued the route opened up in former days by Lucius Lucullus, clearing away the obstructions of long years." I suppose Lucullus had opened up some mountain paths, perhaps even built a road. I don't know, and until Ifind more info, I can't elaborate on it.
Okay then, if there's no more info, then I guess that it would be hard to elaborate. =)

Other wise the article looks pretty good. One last question: there are many unreferenced sentences in here...2 in a row followed by 1 with a reference...I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that the 2 w/o references are covered by that I right?

You are quite right.

I'm putting the article on hold; if no significant progress has been made in 7 days, I'll have to fail it...but if it seems like you are doing well, I'll give you a while. Cheers! —the_ed17— 17:27, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I think I've addressed your concerns. if there's anything else, please say so. Cheers, Constantine 20:01, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
Nope! Congrats on a good article! (and sorry for my line above, that sounded harsh...I shouldn't have put that about failing!) Cheers! —the_ed17— 03:21, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
OK! Thanks a lot! Constantine 13:47, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Excellent map[edit]

The first map you have in the article is absolutely stunning - easily on a par with Featured maps I've seen. Cplakidas should be congratulated. It's unfortunate that the map below it is not of the same quality. Some notation (arrows and battle symbols) showing major troop movements & battles would perfect this excellent foundation. It would not be hard for you to add the arrows and symbols if you learn a little bit about using Inkscape. Good luck with taking the article further. Dhatfield (talk) 21:49, 9 April 2009 (UTC)