Talk:Roman-Persian Wars

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Roman-Persian Wars article.
Article policies
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:


Created Roman-Persian Wars, still have to add a lot more information to this page; many battles i'm still constructing to be added here and a box for all the links to each battle too!--Mole Man 06:58, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Finding particular wars such as the Lazic War no matter how small or large.Mole Man

Contents

[edit] Tactics?

In the beginning the Romans had difficulties fighting the Parthians. Yet, later on they were able to defeat the Parthians. Did they change their tactics? And if so, in what manner? It is worthwhile adding this kind of information to the article.

Wereldburger758 07:03, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

The Romans never defeated the Parthians. The empire went into civil war and a new dynasty took power, known as the Sassanids.Khosrow II 21:54, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Okay, let me rephrase it: in the beginning the Romans suffered a huge defeat against the Parthians. Yet later on, they were able to defeat the Parthians several times. The fighting tactics of the Romans differed greatly from that of the Parthians. The Romans relied on their heavy infantry while the Parthians relied on their cavalry. My question is: what were the fighting tactics of the Romans in their campaigns against the Parthians? Wereldburger758 13:59, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Well, battles went back and forth, that is why neither side could not defeat the other, and why the conflict between Iran and Rome lasted almost 1000 years. The answer to you question by the way is that the Romans encorporated the heavy cavalry into their Eastern armies and created new infantry tactics that modern historians dont know much about today, the records got lost.Khosrow II 21:53, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] It was a victory

Yes, the Persians were more than a match for the Romans. But the final war between the Persians and the Romans ended with the Battle of Nineveh. This was a Roman victory. The Persians subsequently never attcked Roman territory again. Therefore it was a Roman victory. Strategically speaking, it was a Roman victory because the Persians had tried to take Constantinople and Egypt as well as the Levant and in the end, after many battles, they held on to them. (Tactically speaking it was a draw, both survived and the frontline did not move much, if at all). Thirdly, the Roman victory is evident in that (a) the Persians fell to a civil war as a result of the defeat; the Persian King was defeated before his aristocracy overthrew him - true one of the Persian generals remained neutral but this more to Byzantine trickery (b) The Arabs first attacked the Romans, then the Persians after Yarmuk, since it was the Romans whom were more of a threat and they held onto the rich provinces of the Levant and Egypt. 81.156.122.95 19:11, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

It was a victory in that the Persians ended up in a civil war whilst the Byzantine empire reached a new height. The Arab victories over the Roman empire occured because Roman strategy was flawed; they had many more men than the Arabs and lost anyway. In any case the Romans were not exhausted as the Persians were.

I'd argue that the final result was a Roman pyrrhic victory. --GCarty 20:02, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Well stated. On second review it was a pyrrhic victory, but a victory nonetheless in that the Roman empire was not destroyed by the Arabs, but the Persian empire was overcome.Tourskin 17:51, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The end result was a draw at best

A Roman pyrrhic victory? Give me a break. First of all, the Persians won many more battles against the Romans than Vice Versa. The Romans had to pay tribute to the Persians so that they won't get attacked not the other way around. Now what does the Arab conquest of Persia have to do with a "pyrrhic Roman victory"? The Romans and Persians were at peace when the Arabs attacked Persia, hell the Romans and Persians formed an alliance and fought the Arabs together in the Battle of Firaz. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Firaz

The romans actually won more often, the list of battles is incomplete,also the persians never sacked the roman capital whereas the romans sacked the persian capital numerous times. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.1.100.110 (talk) 16:01, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

more evidence than the Romans and Persians were not at war with each other at that stage and they had the same goal and that was to stop the Arabs. The Arabs didn't conquer all of Rome because it was further to them than Persia so I don't see how you made such assumption that since the Arabs took more Persian land than Roman land results in a pyrrhic Roman victory. I'm changing the result to a draw cause that's what it was at best (eventhough Persians won more battles and enjoyed the lions share of territory during most of the time of the wars between the 2 empires) oh and 1 more thing the Persian civil war did not happen because of what happend in the battle of ninveh. The people were unhappy with their king for many reasons but what happend in Ninveh wasn't one of them. In fact many Persians were inviting arabs to come and get rid of their king and did in fact help the arabs in their conquest. The1thatmatters 00:49, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Well slow down. Look at it overall. So what if the Romans had to pay the Persians tribute - it was more like a bribe not to attack. Anyways, the Persians were quite soundly beaten in the final battle of the war, Ninevah. The Persians sued for peace and the Persians held onto Iran only (with half of Iraq) whilst the Romans held the rest.

Nonesense about Rome being too far from the Arabs. it was Constantinople that mattered. They did reach it and besieged it twice. They failed both times because the Romans had so much more land and troops at the end of the last Persian war that they could give up that land (or lose it more like) to the Arabs. What is the evidence that there were more Persian victories? Regardless of their victories, the Persians never succeeded in permanent conquests beyond Mesopatamia. Prove that the Persians were willing to accept arab rulers. In fact there were two major battles after the capital Ctesiphon fell to the Arabs, a testiment to Persian resistance to the arabs.

The only reason why the Persians shared "the lions share" of the territory was because the borders of Persia were not inhabited by so many Bulgarians, Franks, visigoths etc. You get the picture. You are more than welcome to respond.Tourskin 22:42, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I count only 6 Roman victories and 7 Persian victories, many of these so called victories being inconclusive beyond petty tribute.Tourskin 22:45, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

You cannot infer from the number of battles won that the whole war was a victory.

[edit] Trivia

The Quranic reference is interesting; however, I disagree that it should be the last sentence at the introduction of the article. I've moved it to a Trivia section, although I think Trivia might sound pejorative- this isn't intended. However, this is a history article, so religious revelations and such should be on the back-burner. No offense, just sense.--C.Logan 11:29, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I've temporarily removed the information until I can somehow incorporate some of the information found here[1](Specifically, the quotations from Watt and C.G. Pfander.) As it does cast doubt on whether this is actually even what is predicted in the Quran, the information should somehow be incorporated.--C.Logan 20:46, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Split

Why does this article support the absurdity that an alleged Roman-Persian war took place between a Roman and a Persian Empire? The Roman Republic and Empire are treated as completely separate civilisations to the Byzantine Empire in western scholarship. I've never read nor heard about anyone speaking of a "Roman-Persian" conflict which lasted 8 centuries as the article implied. This is as unscientific as to assume that the Battle of Manzikert and the Turkish invasion of Cyprus is part of a 1000-year old Greco-Turkish conflict. Is there any source for this historical approach whatsoever? Is there a source on the names of the conflicts involved (because it's obviously more than one)? If not, then the article should be split into two separate articles: Roman-Parthian war and Byzantine-Sassanid war. This should be modelled along the lines of Byzantine-Ottoman wars, which is a very descriptive name for a conflict of questionable nature. There's no room for original research. Miskin 23:01, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

And what about the Franco-Prussian war? The French empire under Napolean collapsed after Sedan, yet the new French Republic inherited the same war? Or what about World War 1, where the old Tsarist Regime of Russia was overthrown by the Provisional government yet the war is still known as World war 1? Different governments in different time periods lead the same wars. Thats also why we can have un resolved wars for hundreads of years, for example, between Sicily and the Netherlands which had not signed a de juire peace treaty ever since the English Civil war. Its a matter of interpreatation based upon real historical evidence - new governments continue the wars. Look at the Byzantine-arab wars. The Arabs changed their governments several times, first the Rashdin, then Ummayad, then Abbassid. Then the Fatimid Caliphate in Egypt rose up and started their own little wars (See Basil II wars with relieving Antioch and Alepo). No original research.Tourskin 20:00, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Without a real peace treaty, the de facto peace is still considered a war, its just that there is a very long pause in combat operations.Tourskin 20:02, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

The Franco-Prussian war and WW1 are well documented events which lasted only a handful of years. This article uses an unverified historical term about an alleged single conflict which spannned over several centuries. If you are comparing this to WW1 then there's a problem by definition. Wikipedia is not a place for publishing original thought. Why do scholars treat the Holy Roman Empire, the Byzantine Empire and the Roman Empire as different civilisations is none of our concern. Their criteria of making disctinctions between dynasties and states (Parthians and Sassanids) is none of our concern either, therefore it's pointless to back this up by citing examples that in your opinion have a relevance to the question at hand. We are here to put together published information and views, not to correct them. Hence the problem remains, is there any way to prove that 'Roman-Persian Wars' is standard term for the conflicts between the Roman Republic and the Parthians, the Roman Empire and the Parthians, and the Byzantines and the Sassanids? If not then the article should be split. I'll wait for someone to come up with an adequate number of sources. Miskin 23:52, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

A proposal would be to slit the article either to "Roman-Persian wars" and "Byzantine-Persian wars" or Roman-Parthan and Byzantine-Sassanid accordingly. Even if the title of the article is assumed to be accurate, there's still a problem with the content and its absurd implications on the nature of the conflict(s). Using a poorly supported name is a minor thing, but giving it an erroneous interpretation goes over the limit. I have corrected a great deal of unsourced POV but I'm afraid that a cleanup may be inevitable. Miskin 00:01, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Hence the names "warsssssssss". With an s at the end, may I add. More than one war. Also shown in the article. You cannot split it up because you don't have "official" historical interpretation any more than I might for the title "Roman-Persian wars". Remember, at the end of the day, we can call them Romans, Byzantines or Persians, Parthians - they did not change their name because we say so. The Byzantines called themselves Roman and the Persians continued to call themselves Persians regardless if they were Sassinad or Parthian. This is also very evident when the Seljuks took over Iran, and they called themselves Iranians or Persians.

By the way, are we discussing the same thing? I have no problems with you editing the article for the better. I just oppose splitting it.Tourskin 02:31, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

We do not call the Byzantines 'Romans', at least not after the reign of Justinian I, but even during his reign it's rare. This is common scholarly practice and there's nothing we can do about it. The Byzantines called themselves Romans and so did the Germans, but neither their contemporaries nor modern scholars use that name for them. Modern Greeks also called themselves Romans until the 19th century, this doesn't mean that wikipedia should be using that name. Your criteria are therefore flawed, as they do not abide by any wp:policy. You're wrong btw that I don't have any "official historical interpretation" than you do, maybe not on the name (which I haven't researched yet), but definitely on the nature of the dispute, i.e. that the Roman-Persian and Byzantine Persian wars are treated as separate conflicts. Hence why the Byzantine-Persian or Byzantine-Sassanid wars has to have its own article, in which I'd like to contribute. I'll start the new article and move the Byzantine-Persian conflict there. Why would that bother you? It will only reduce the potential of injecting unsourced POV in this article. What would you prefer betweeen 'Byzantine-Persian' and 'Byzantine-Sassanid'? The latter adds precision but the former might be more popular. Miskin 14:11, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Further proof of the independent nature of the Byzantine-Sassanid conflict can be found in the specialised work called "An Encyclopedia of Battles: Accounts of Over 1,560 Battles from 1479 B.C. to the Present" (David Eggenberger). The last "short lived Roman-Persian conflict" was instigated by Emperor Julian in 362. The later conflict between Anastasius I and the Sassanids (502 AD) is called "Byzantine-Persian Wars". So as you can see, even before Justinian the Greek East is called Byzantine. Of course this isn't done at random, Anastasius was the first emperor to rule an independent East, and is often considered as the first Byzantine Emperor. So I guess this proves that the Roman-Persian and Byzantine-Persian are valid names for two separate conflicts. Miskin 14:23, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough, split it. But whilst the Byzantines mught be Romans, the Germans aren't. Tourskin 15:59, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps we should split it up into three wars:

Roman-Parthian, in which the Romans more or less were victorius, the defeat of the Parthians in 195 AD leading to a Sassanid uprising and takeover in 224 AD.

Roman - Sassanid, ending in the 4th century as you mentioned, in which the result was more or less a draw.

Byzantine - Sassanid, in which the result was a draw / pyhirric draw . Perhaps one could "invent" new words, like pyhrric draw, since both nations were too weak to defend against the Arab invasions etc. Tourskin 19:41, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

The German Emperor had been officially recognised as the only true "Emperor of the Romans" by the pope and the clergy of Rome itself. Byzantium may have been the Roman Empire's political continuation, but it kept a separate culture which was alien to the Latin West (former Roman Empire), thus nobody recognised it as a Roman Empire but themselves. But in any case the Holy Roman Empire emerged after Persia was conquered by the Arabs. I agree with the split, though not with your conclusions on the result. From what I know Heraclius utterly defeated the Sassanids and even had the chance to utterly conquer them but judged it wiser to keep them as a vassal state (can be sourced). Furthermore the weakened Byzantium did not fall to the Arabs. It lost important Greco-Roman lands such as Alexandria, Crete and the holy land, but its nucleus in the Balkans and coastal asia minor remained unconquered. Miskin 11:53, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Well the German empire wasn't established until 10th century, hundreds of years after Persia fell. I too think that the romans won but tell that to my persian friend above who thinks that Persian overthrow was not to do with Ninevah. Hah.

The Pope in the 12 the century refused to recognize the authority of the German Roman emperor and instead established a good relation with the Byzantines. Anyways, even the last Holy Roman emperor once remarked "it is neither Holy, nor Roman, nor much of an empire". Considering its confederation style government and decentralization of power (at least later on) I would not cal it an empire on too many occasions, even though I recgnize it was one.

By the way, please do show the evidence that the Romans did win the war, and settle the out come. In any case, you can look at it from a stratgeic point of view - the Persians tried to take the middle east. They failed - a successful defence by the Romans is as much a victory as a successful offense.Tourskin 01:57, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the outcome of the Roman-Persian conflict was, but unlike this article implies, the Romans were interested only in protecting their eastern frontier and not in expanding it further over persian lands. As for the Byzantine-Persian conflict, it is pretty much common knowledge that the Persians became a serious threat until they were ultimately defeated by Heraclius. I will provide the corresponding sources in the corresponding article. There is no need to claim a winner and a loser, all it needs to be done is to provide the sequence of historical events. Miskin 22:32, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Also you're wrong on your views on medieval Romanity and its significance in Christian Kingdoms. Charlemagne was already in 800 BC crowned the "Imperator Romanorum" by the clergy and church of Rome, which as Pope Leo III puts it, marked the "transfer of the empire from the Greeks in Constantinople to the Franks in the West". Byzantium was long despised by Rome and the Latin west, and for what it matters, it became a nation much quicker than the Germanic Kingdom which kept the Latin language and the "Imperium Romanorum" for many centuries. Yet neither Byzantium nor the Holy Roman Empire were 'Roman', it all comes down to the fact that the term was the title of christian Imperial states in the middle ages. This is why modern scholars use their own terminology. Miskin 22:42, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair point, I turned a blind eye to Charlemagne. But if anyone could claim to be Roman, it had to be the Byzantines who had the strongest claim. Though of course, the emperors were no longer Latin from at least Justinian onwards (he was Illyrian I believe). But then again, many Roman emperors before were not true Romans. Like Hadrian - I think it was him anyway. 160.227.129.254 23:03, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

So have you started the Roman-Sassanid or Byzantine-Sassanid articles yet? I could offer a hand in setting up the very basics. And do a little map editting too. I acknowledge that you have more information and ability and gathering the evidence.160.227.129.254 23:09, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Politically Byzantium was the undisputed inheritor of Rome, though this was bluntly declined by Latin propaganda which termed 'Roman Emperors' only the rulers who were crowned by the clergy of Rome (eventually the Germanics). In any case even in the real (ancient) Roman Empire the emperors had ceased being ethnically Roman at an early stage. Justinian was born to a supposedly Roman/Latin family but he is not included in the "Illyrian" emperors such as Diocletian. The Latins widely regarded Mauricius as the first "Greek emperor of the Romans"; however, even Justinian I, who came from a Latin background, was already viewed as a foreigner in Italy. The Italian suspicion of the Greek-speaking Romans was exploited to the fullest by the Gothic rulers of the peninsula. Miskin 23:25, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Anyways I got carried away... Nope, I haven't started yet and I would appreciate your help in setting up the basics and even participating in the edits. Any map contributions would be more than welcome. By the way you have forgotten to sign in. Miskin 23:25, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah I wasn't bothered to sign in. So I guess I'll begin the Byzantine-Sassanid Wars then.Tourskin 03:50, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I am against any split. I am restoring the article for now, please get wide consensus before splitting the article. You may create Byzantine-Sassanid or other sub-articles, but "Roman-Persian wars" is a common terminology and refers to the overall conflict between Persian dynasties/empires and Roman dynasties/empires and should cover all the wars between the two civilizations just like Turko-Persian wars or Russo-Persian wars. --Mardavich 05:58, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Scholars acknowledge that the Sassnid Persians were a continuaution of the Parthians, and there wars with the Romans was a continuation (which is why scholars consider the Roman Iranian rivalry to be one of the longest in history, over 600 years). Also, it was a stalemate, neither side won. Miskin, you have been putting an anti-Iranian spin on several articles, and in a week I will have more time to discuss the Battle of Thermopylae, Greco-Persian Wars, and this article.Azerbaijani 16:29, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Also, there are many references to the Roman Persian/Perso Roman wars.Azerbaijani 16:31, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

How on earth is this a anti-Iranian split?? I proposed myself to name the new article Byzantine-Persian wars. If there's anything I'm interested in splitting is ancient Roman from Byzantine history. Your examples you brought up are original thought, I did present souces which consider the Roman-Persian and the Byzantine-Persian as separate conflicts. Can you counter this? Will it make any difference if the Byzantine-Sassanid was renamed to Byzantine-Persian and linked in this article? Miskin 16:34, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Its not about that, its that these wars are one in the same, a continuation, with different political situations in each empire. You continuously put an anti-Iranian spin on every historical article with regards to Rome and Greece, and when I have more time, I can deal with all of these issues. Its not about Persian this or Persian that, you carry out certain actions on your own which is unacceptable to others. You need to learn to compromise. I can bring you several books from the 20th century (even early 20th century) which uses the terms Perso-Roman Wars. The article, as it is, clearly says when the Byzantine Roman split comes (also remember that the Byzantines considered themselves Romans, the term Byzantine is modern).Azerbaijani 16:55, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Miskin, you cannot make these enormous decisions on your own. You need consensus. If you dont already know, let me tell you: You do not own any article on Wikipedia, and you are not the only user here. This means that you have to work with others. What I'm trying to say is that you need to get consensus. I disagree with this move, and Mardavich disagrees with this move, so I wonder how you can decide what goes on here? Use the talk page please.Azerbaijani 16:52, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Read above, there was a discussion and a decision. Actually there are two users and the WP:ATT policy, there is a source behind my edits. Unless you come up with a source to support your claims, then I've got every right to ignore you. If you continue such disruptive editing I'm going to have to hunt down the Iranian POV-warrior alliance until it is settled by ArbCom. Miskin 16:58, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

In a nutshell: To claim that there's a 800-year or so Persian-Roman conflict is unsourced original thought. I proposed to split this to Roman-Persian war and Byzantine-Persian war, separated by the Anastasian war. This would follow the example of the encyclopaedia of battles cited above. You have absolutely no basis of denying this split without citing a counter-source. I would advise you to read Talk pages before accusing people for making unilateral actions. Miskin 17:11, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Can you even bring up a reason as to why you oppose the split? I need to have at least one reason to show the 3rd-party editors that I'm about to involve. Btw my list on your rv-wars over my edits is getting longer and longer. Keep up the good work. Miskin 20:51, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
The reasons have already been explained, Roman-Persian Wars or Perso-Roman wars are common terminology used by many authors to refer to the 600-year conflicts between Roman and Persians dynasties/empires. In order to split an article, you need consensus, you can't just declare consensus. Wikipedia is a collaborative project, not a one-man show. --Mardavich 20:59, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Ooooww... well it looks like this people - I Think in response to your opposition Azerbaijani and your s too Mardavich, that I hereby announce my intention to create the following articles:

British-Franco wars, lasting from 1070 something until 1814 when Napolean had his ass kicked,

Greco-Turkish wars, from the siege of Troy right down to the incidents at Cyprus

Russo-Turkish war from 1200's when the distantly related Mongol/Turks invaded Novograd to 1918 when the Soviets took over and made "peace"

Franco-German wars from 1618 till 1945.

Oh and by the way, I am being sarcastic. Split this article before I make more silly jokes. Tourskin 21:05, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I temporarily added the Byzantine-Sassanid outcome as the final outcome of the continuous "Roman-Persian war" that this article propagates. Before proceeding I'm just curious to know the Iranian argument against the split. I'm expecting to hear something other than me being "anti-Iranian", therefore "we have to oppose anything he says". You two made all this fuss and you haven't even brought up any reasons yet. Miskin 21:13, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Your edit summaries are hilarious. First you claim that this is about a continuous 700 conflict and then you say that there was never an outcome. What the heck? That doesn't make sense. Why don't you just accept that this is a series of multiple conflicts, the least we can do is divide in two. Let them go on with their POV-pushing and source-removals Tourskins, I'll bring more sources on the outcome of the Byzantine-Persian conflict. Miskin 21:40, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I've been reading this with some interest and I wish to bring in my opinion. In short, it really seems to come down to what name one wants to assign to the Eastern Empire. As far as I know, the 4th to 7th centuries are widely considered a period of transition, and there is no consensus on what to call the empire, which could be a determining factor in calling those later wars Roman-Persian or Byzantine-Persian. To give a popular example, the Eastern Empire is only called "Byzantine" on the maps after the late 620's in the Penguin Atlas of Medieval History. The author bases himself on the reforms that were carried out by Heraclius around this time. Given this usage, the later wars could arguably be included in the series of Roman-Persian conflicts. I myself can't see why the wars of the Byzantine period would be treated otherwise than as a continuation of the Roman-Persian wars; after all, they involved the very same political entities quarrelling over (largely) the same border regions. On the base of those arguments, I would not see any added value in splitting the article. Iblardi 21:58, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Very persuasive arguments but still... Tourskin 22:01, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

The undisputedly most popular name assigned to the Eastern Empire is Byzantium. Even if some sources do talk about a Roman-Persian war in the age of Heraclius, none of them puts it in the same basket with the wars of the Roman Republic and the Parthians. So the distinction has to be made, and unless we find an alternative name for the ancient Romans, the Eastern Roman vs Sassanian conflict must be called Byzantine-Persian, an already popular term. Miskin 22:09, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

As I stated in the other article, even the Byzantines themselves regarded their conflict with the Persians as a distinct war - see Procopius' "Persian War". There has to be a significant amount of counter-sources to support the opposite view. It seems to me that some editors want to make it seem as if the Persian dynasties rivaled the mighty Roman Empire for 8 centuries. This is a very misleading POV. The Roman Republic and Empire have had a fixed limit on their Asian border that they only seeked to preserve. The Byzantine Empire that was centered in Constantinople, had a much different geopolitical situation to face. Therefore the political situation was by no means the same. Miskin 22:09, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Adding to that is the Roman conquest of Ctesiphon on many occasions including 162 AD an 198 AD - the results of which led to a weakening of Parthian imperial power and the vassal state of the Sassanids taking over. Hence concludes that war. A new war emerged there after. Tourskin 22:18, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
The Roman army before the 2nd century AD was heavy infantry based around the citizen soldier - the later armies of the Romans were cavalry based, relying upon Huns and Turkic mercenaries. They are different in this manner too.Tourskin 22:19, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Touché Tourskin. As I final note I would like to point out that even Iranian scholars consider this a separate Byzantine-Persian conflict albeit a Byzantine victory. See Sassanian Elite Cavalry AD 224-642 by Kaveh Farrokh, he regards the "20-year war" a "Byzantine pyrrhic victory", following Heraclius' large-scale invasion of Persia. Like I said before, all of this is mainstream information which is denied in vain. Miskin 22:22, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, well, the Roman-Persian wars would of course start after the rise of the Sassanids in the 3rd century, not earlier. It is fairly common practice to distinguish the Sassanian from the Parthian Empire. A split based on this distinction would seem more reasonable. Iblardi 22:32, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh and Behmod, you've already got a warning about making blind reversions instead of participating in discussions. See what I mean Mardavich, just put yourself in my shoes for a sec and tell me what you would assume. There seems to be constant, organised POV-pushing instigated by partisan editors in several different articles concerning Persian history. The wp:consensus is used as a red herring to defy all other wp policies such as WP:ATT, and pretend that there is some sort of agreement in order to violate NPOV. Miskin 22:38, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Iblardi, thanks for your comments. I would also like to add that the Byzantines considered themselves Romans.
Also, the Parthians were merely the dynasty before the Sassanids. We do not distinguish the Romans based on the ethnic background of their emperors, so why do the same in this case? Not all Roman emperors were Roman, and not all the dynasty of Persia (west calls it Persia, however, to Iranians it has always been Iran, which is why Iranians have never made the distinctions westerners want to make) were Persian.
In Nusaḫ-i Jahānārā written by Qazi Aḥmad ibn Muḥammad al-Ğaffārī al-Qazvīnī in the 1500's, the Parthians are described as the third dynasty of Iran (Persia) and the Sassanids as the fourth dynasty of Iran (Persia). These wars are simply called the Roman Persian wars because the west called Iran Persia.Azerbaijani 22:44, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Compromise

How about we include all the information in one article, yet have the first half be about the Roman Empire/Persia and the second half be about Byzantium (which according to their own people, who called themselves Romans, was the Roman Empire)/Persia. Acceptable (it would end alot of this needless bickering).Azerbaijani 22:49, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Gentlemen compromise, and I don't dislike the idea Azerbaijani. But then again, me and Miskin had a little discussion regarding how the Byzantines and Romans were quite different. I mean, they were Greek and not Latin, had an Eastern Cavalry army not Western Latin infantry army, had different laws and language and the emperors were far from Roman. Most of all, Rome wasn't in their domain for too long so calling them Roman is a little tenuous. comment was added by Tourskin

Of course they were different, they are considered different, and they always have been. It's very simplistic to say that they "that's the name they used for themselves". The Germans and the Seljuks or Rum also claimed that title. Even today modern Romanians are called Romans in their language. We have to use the terms that scholarship and by consequence wikipedia uses. There's an article Byzantine Empire and another Roman Empire, there's no need to pretend this is the same thing. Persians never called themselves Persians either, but why do we call them that? Azerbaijani has not given one single reason as to why he doesn't want the split. First you give a reason, then you give a source, and then we talk about compromises. You're creating problems for the sake of pretending to WP:OWN the article, what must be done is evident. Get over it and let other people make contributions. My first contribution is to point out that this is not about an 8-century conflict which ended up in a "stallmate". It's about a series of conflicts of different nature. Miskin 01:12, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't care about having two articles but it's certain that eventually somebody is going to complain about the repeating of information and the contradictions. And what for? I would like to hear some good reasons about it. So far I'm under the impression that partisan POV-pushers are trying to pass their own version of history as the opinion of western historiography. Miskin 01:22, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I did a little search and I found that it is quite common to call this long lasting conflict the Roman-Persian wars. [2], [3], [4],[5],[6]. These wars are obviously related together and it is very informative to have all the information in one article. Having 2 sections or sub-pages are also helpful but splitting the article is misleading.(Arash the Archer 14:24, 6 May 2007 (UTC))
Well, the Sassanids also fought a war with the Roman Empire before it became Byzantium, so the split cuts the Sassanid part of teh conflict almost in half. This should all be in one article, neat and organized. This is one reason why the split doesnt make sense. Another is that the Byzantines considered themselves Romans and called themselves Romans. Infact, their lands were still called Rome even when the Seljuks came (i.e Seljuks of Rum). Thats another reason. Also, many of the things Tourskin is talking about is simple adaptation to new things. For example, the Cavalry the Byzantines inherited was the Eastern Roman Empires adoption of Parthian and Sassanid cavalry tactics (as the Sassanids adopted Roman siege tactics). I dont think you can base such differences because adaptation to new situations happens all the time.
I dont own anything, which is why I am attempting this compromise, and this compromise is a true compromise, as it satisfies your split of of the conflict, and it satisfies our concern that all the information be in one article. Why do you want to argue about this when we can solve this right here and now?Azerbaijani 15:23, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
The Roman Empire and the Byzantine Empire are considered different political and cultural entities entities. Your original thought cannot serve as an argument for our decision-making Azarbaijani, please try to abide by WP:ATT. If you make your own publications then we'll consider your personal point of view. From what I see you have a wrong understanding of the period, this is why wikipedia asks for sources not for opinions. There has to be a split, this is inevitable, for the simple reason that not a single western source treats this as an 8-century conflict. Even if you cite something, you still need to prove that it's a consensus view, but so far there's nothing which contradicts the non-continuous nature of the conflicts. See my split proposals below. Miskin 17:32, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Also, here is another compromise that would go great with this compromise. Lets put all of this information into one article, and split the article into two sections, one about the Byzantine Sassanid conflict, and the other about the Roman Parthian/Sassanid conflict.

Once that happens, instead of arguing about whether the conflict as a whole ended in an Iranian or Roman victory, we can just state that the conflict including several wars and battles, both sides winning and losing, and then create subsections for each individual war, stating who won each war individually (for example, each subsection should have its own tiny template). This sounds like a great idea doesnt it?

Guys, sometimes, if all of us just quit being stubborn, we can make really good and effective compromises. Miskin should be satisfied, as he gets what he wants (the split between the Roman-Parthian/Sassnid and the Byzantine-Sassnid, but all in one article), Tourskin is satisfied, as the war results will be shown individually (we wont say who won the entire conflict, but we'll say the victor for each individual war), and Mardavich and I will be satsified (all the information will be in one article). Guys, this is a win-win-win situation and these situations are rare, lets take advantage of it.Azerbaijani 15:26, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

We cannot put them in one article since the dispute is about the title of the article. What you're suggesting contradictory. Leaving it in one article would mean sticking to the status quo, i.e. abiding by your rules, which is far from a compromise. I generally don't see a reason to speak about compromises when fundemental policies such as WP:ATT are being violated. That's not edits are made. A compromise is made when policies, sources, and consensus are unclear, and this is far from the case here. Miskin 17:32, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Arash the Asher you're wrong, you are misintrepreting the amelioration proposals, the claims of the article in question, and the sources you just cited. None of those sources imply what the article says, i.e. that there was an 8-century continuous Roman-Persian conflict starting with the Roman Republic and ending with Heraclius. The first of the sources is not a scholarly source so there's no reason to make any comments, though it does separate the Roman-Persian from the Byzantine-Sassanid conflicts. The links 2, 4 and 5 only mention the term 'Persian-Roman War', they do not assign any dates. There's actually only one of those sources which refers to the Roman-Sassanid and Byzantine-Sassanid as a Roman-Persian conflict. However, if you read it you'll find out that it speaks about a 4-century conflict (not 8), it does not include the conflict between the Roman Republic and the Parthians, which makes a huge difference. I've already mentioned in my last edit that it's not impossible to find some sources on the Byzantine-Sassanid and Roman-Sassanid being called Roman-Persian, but you will never find any sources calling the entire 8-century conflict the same war. If you want to follow the practice of your third source then you'll be forced to split this article to Roman-Parthian and Roman-Sassanid conflicts. So far I have cited:

  • Britannica 2006
  • The Encyclopedia of Battles by D. Eggenberger
  • The dictionary of ancient and Medieval Warfare
  • Sassanian Elite Cavalry AD 224-642 by Kaveh Farrokh
  • The Persian Wars by Procopius

And they break down the conflict to Roman-Persian and Byzantine-Persian. This article needs to be split in order to abide by the practices of Western historiography, all sources verify this. The choice on the split is yours, you can decide between:

or

I support the second option because it is the most popular in western scholarship, the first one is ambiguous because it doesn't make a distinction between Rome and Byzantium. Miskin 17:20, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I will try to elaborate my previous argument. Please bear in mind that I am not automatically in favour of any particular point of view. I believe it to be good practice to be flexible in applying historical terms that are not clearly defined, as opposed to scientifically well-established ones (not only in this instance; I have been engaged in similar discussions before, see Talk:Hominidae. That means that "Byzantine" and "Roman" have equal rights, so to say, to be used as a name for the Late Empire. Using "Roman" is defendable at least. To give two examples: J. Strayers (ed.), Dictionary of the Middle Ages (N.Y. 1982-2004) has the Late Roman Empire run from 284 to 641. Another, admittedly old source that I happen to have at hand, says:

"Heraclius was able almost to dictate his own terms to the new monarch. (...) In Persia, Siroes died and was succeeded on the throne by Shah Barz, who followed a thoroughly Romanophile policy. The ancient struggle between Rome and Persia was ended forever." (John La Monte, The World of the Middle Ages (N.Y. 1949), p. 70 - note how the antiquity of the conflict is stressed, which is not to say that it includes the period of the Roman Republic.)

Furthermore, in the early 7th century, the eastern emperor was still considered the legitimate, "Roman" emperor in the west, as can be gleaned, for instance, from this short chronicle (part of the Etymologiae) by Isidore of Seville: [7]. (The entries at the end of the page still speak of "Romani" under Phocas.)
Having said this, I think the way you approach this period is largely dependent on your point of departure. If you write about the wars of the Late Roman Empire, you are more likely to include the wars of the 6th and 7th centuries as a continuation of the 4th-century Roman-Persian conflicts. On the other hand, if you write a history of Byzantium, you may be prone to calling the wars Byzantine-Persian (or, for that matter, Sassanid).
Finally, if the strategical position of Constantinople is a criterion for speaking of a Byzantine-Persian conflict, then the split should i.m.o. be made at either at 395 (effectively in 502?), 330 (but then it would include Julian's campaign, which would push back the date of the establishment of a "Byzantine" empire to a very early date), or even 286 (? not sure about that one), when Nicomedia was established as a capital by Diocletian.
On those grounds I am still unconvinced of the need and the practicality of splitting up the article. Iblardi 08:59, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes this is all true Iblardi. I suggested 502 AD as the starting point of Byzantine wars because this is used in the Encyclopaedia of Battles cited above. The reason for that is most likely the fact that Anastasius I was the first Imperator to rule over an independent East. I wouldn't mind splitting to Roman-Parthian and Roman-Sassanian, changing that date completely, but it appears that most sources divide the conflict to Roman and Byzantine. Miskin 09:54, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

None of the Iranian editors have made any comments on my proposals, so I assume they are convinced. After all I haven't seen any counter-source refuting the split yet. I take it that we continue with the split between Roman-Persian and Byzantine-Persian wars? Should I rename Byzantine-Sassanid to Byzantine-Persian and move the post-Anastasian content of this article to the new? Miskin 13:27, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

As I said, personally, I am not entirely convinced, but I have pointed out my thoughts, your motivation makes sense too, and I am not going to oppose a split at any cost. If splitting the page does indeed mean following the majority of sources, then I am OK with it. But at any rate, I think it would be best to wait for a couple more hours to give the others a full 24-hours window to react. I myself have no preference for Sassanid above Persian and vice versa. Iblardi 14:03, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
I have no objections to replacing Byzantine-Sassanid with Byzantine-Persian. Now that it appears to be settled, let the debate as to who won BEGIN!! Lol. Tourskin 23:20, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
The Arabs did. Iblardi 16:05, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
I am busy right now. I have said several times that I will enter the debate when I have more time. Please be patient.Azerbaijani 16:12, 9 May 2007 (UTC)


Wow wow hold it Iblardi. The Arabs did not take a part in this war, you are confusing this conflict with the Byzantine-Arab Wars. They may have been involved in a very minor scale, but that does not count. There were roughly ten years between the peace after Ninevah in 628 and the wars in Syria in the late 630's and 640's. Tourskin.

I was being ironic, Tourskin. ;) What I meant was that the continuous warfare took such a heavy toll on both sides that it did facilitate the Arab conquests that started immediately afterwards - which makes them, in a sense, the real "winners" in this conflict. Iblardi 20:15, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Okay, but thats bringing it of the main topic - we still haven't decided who has won. Azerbaijaini, I am waiting for you, don't worry. But we can't wait forever, we are disagreeing as to what the article is saying at the moment.Tourskin 18:49, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
On a more serious note, then: I would say that in the Byzantine-Persian wars as a whole, no definite winner can be proclaimed, simply because the traditional pattern was cut short by the Arab invasions. The last campaign was certainly won by the Byzantines, and it resulted in a power struggle in Persia itself and can safely be said to have caused the downfall of the Sassanid dynasty. But beyond that, we can only speculate. Who says the Persians wouldn't have rallied under some new leader, similar to what happened with Atatürk after the fall of the Ottoman empire in the early 1920s? If you want to summarize the conflict in terms of winning and losing, "inconclusive" would i.m.o. be the best option. Iblardi 20:46, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

What every one here fails t understand is that these were a series of wars, not one huge war. Both sides won wars, and both sides lost wars. There cannot be a winner to a series of conflicts. This isnt like the English-French war which lasted 100 years, we are talking about 8 centuries of on and of war fare, not one war. There was no winner, infact, that whole winner category should be taken off, and like I suggested, we should only say who won which war individually.Azerbaijani 21:43, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

True, it was a series of wars, but traditionally relationships between Rome/Byzantium and its eastern neighbour were strained, to say the least; the empires were each other's natural rivals, both claimed ascendancy in that region. From this point of view, the wars may be treated as one long conflict. But like you, I'm not so much into the "winner/loser" thing for the conflict as a whole. That could only be applied if one of the states had somehow succeeded in conquering the other one, which is obviously not the case. Iblardi 11:03, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Let me restate: conquered, or at least permanently removed from the region. Iblardi 19:20, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Exactly, no state annihilated the other, it was the Arabs that destroyed both (had it not been for Constantinople, the Byzantine Empire would have collapsed hundreds much sooner than it did). Its ludicrous to say that there was a winner. Was Iran the winner of the Roman-Persian Wars because the Roman Empire collapsed? Miskin is a highly biased editor. While on the Byzantine-Sassanid Wars article he wants to push that the Byzantines won, I dont see him here trying to push that Iran won, because by his logic, the Roman Empire collapsed and only the Sassanids remained standing. We cannot say whether there is a winner or not. This compromise is fair and balanced, lets just implement it and get this over with.
I would also like to point out that Miskin is a biased editor. He went as far as accusing Iranica or not being a reliable source. Inffact, Encyclopaedia Iranica is one of the most authoritative sources on any subject anywhere. Miskin and is pro-western bias is going around destorting every Greek-Iran and Roman-Iran article battle or war articles he can find. My compromise is fair for everyone, and encorporates what everyone wants, Miskin is trying to hold this back because of his biased editing.Azerbaijani 21:45, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Azerbaijani, stop being personal when will you stop? Okay so it was a draw, I am a little more convinced. So then if you want lots of wars, split the article. There are many wars throughout history that end in decisive victories without anyone conquering anyone. Look at who was the main opponent to the Arabs. There were countless decisive battles between the Byzantines and Arabs but fewer against the Persians. And please, don't be ridiculous and say that Persia is closer to the Arabs cos if you look at a map showing road routes, it takes a very long time to get from Mecca and Medina to Ctesiphon or Persopolis, and yet by fleet you can get to Constantinople much quicker. Tourskin 18:35, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
What are you talking about?
First, I havent gotten personal with anyone. I have not personally attacked anyone. Wikipedia policies say that commenting on a users edits are ok as long as you dont comment on the user himself. I have been commenting on Miskin's edits when I talk about bias, I'm not attacking Miskin as a person (I have no reason to attack him anyway).
Secondly, your trying to say that because the Byzantines won a war that simply happened to be the last war between the two empires, the Byzantines won the entire conflict? Thats ridiculous. Tell me Tourskin, did the Sassanids when the Roman-Persian Wars, because last I checked, the Roman Empire collapsed and the Sassanids were left standing.Azerbaijani 19:09, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Wonrg again, the Sassanids collapsed after the Arab invasions and the Romans lived on as the Byzantines, whom regained power in the 11th and 12 the centuries under Basil II and the Komnenian dynasties. Furthermoore, you said that I was biased and had little info on the topic. I look at the and result of a war. Thats how all wars are looked at. What happened overall. The Nazis beat the crap out of the French at the beginning of the second world war yet who won? The French of course. Right now though I am as exhausted as the Byzantine empire and don't really care anymore. You can change it to a Sassanid Victory and claim that the Byzantines fell. In time however, one of us will be proven wrong, I am not saying you are wrong, I am saying that If I am right more people in the future will raise this issue, so do what you will. I have no refernces. Tourskin 17:58, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

As I have said, this argument seems to be going no place. So I am just going to concentrate on improving the article in a strictly neutral way; I'll see if I can add some more images, find some sources etc. I hope you will assist. So what about the Byzantine-Sassanid wars is that article to be deleted...or what?160.227.129.254 14:58, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Diocletian

I believe the Wars are regarded for the most part as more strategically successful for the Romans than the Persians because the Romans were able to achieve a considerable degree of success so far from home. The Romans 'took the fight to the enemy'; even though they lost some battles, they at least successfully ensured that those battles were fought much closer to Persia than to Italy. The Persians were never able to conduct sustained operations deep within Roman territorry (like in Greece or even western Turkey) or to truly threaten critical Roman interests (such as Egypt). The battlefront was always closer to core Persian territorry, including occasional times when the Persian monarchy was compelled to actually flee it's home base because of Roman advance. Strategically Rome always held the initiative, through a combination of directly projecting it's own forces and by supporting the oft-successful Armenian offensives. The Roman performance was certainly more impressive, if not always victorious.

Why are there no sub-articles mentioning that period of the conflict involving Diocletian's highly-successful campaign against Bahram II? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rushman99 (talk • contribs) 16:55, 5 May 2008 (UTC)


Over the period (referring roughly from 240 CE - 628 CE), there are a very large number of battles fought between the two powers in a succession of wars. One thing commonly ignored among scholars brought up on the Romano-Byzantine texts such as Maurikios, Ammianus and Prokopius, is that for much of the period Sasanian Persia also fought frequent wars on it's Eastern frontier against the Chionites, Kidarotes, Hepthalites, Kushans, etc. Recent excavation sof the Gurgan Walls, the Red Snake etc demonstrate the huge state resources poured into this area. [1]

Recent scholarship has made a re-assessment of many of the earlier claims of success against the Sasanians, so for example it is not now believed that Odenathus captured Ctesiphon. Several engagements originally claimed as Roman successes are now thought to be nothing more than political panegyrics. (Gordian etc..).

Please also be cautious about citing only one work, (admittedly a collection of sources) as authoritative. It would have been better to cite the sources listed in the Greatrex & Lieu volume. Doug Me (talk) 03:36, 2 June 2008 (UTC)