Talk:Antony's Atropatene campaign

Pythonesque to the max
This so-called Article has all the attributes of some undereducated Brit school boy's mid-term essay. However, not wanting to tar an entire race with jejunesse, let's just say that the following is self evident and self referential. And very funny. To wit:

"Antony's Parthian War, Antony's War on Parthia or the Roman-Parthian War of 40-33 BC was a conflict following the Battle of Carrhae, between the Roman Republic, represented in the East by the triumvir Mark Antony, and the Parthians." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.235.77.236 (talk) 01:56, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I have some issues with this article.

Substantive issues

I disagree with or at least think should balance the key statement of this article 'But the campaign ended in a disastrous defeat due to the lack of a clear strategy'. As a reference, see Professor Richard Alston's book 'Rome's Revolution' (Oxford University Press, 2015). Alston argues from fact that if we look at the facts of what happened without ancient bias, the was was a success. Page 187 ' In early 34, Antony invaded Armenia. He captured the Armenian king and drove off a Parthian counterattack. Antony had won the war: he had driven the Parthians from Syria; killed Pacorus, heir to the Parthian throne; intimidated Media; and captured Armenia. The later tradition, hostile to Antony regards the war as a failure and a further example of the incompetence of a general distracted by affairs of the heart. but Antony could point to a series of political and military successes that had securely placed vast territories under Roman influence and weakened the other powers in the region. ' Note he doesn't even mention here driving the pro-Parthian puppet out of Judea and appointing a strong ally in Herod. As I said, the comment is at least questionable and if we look at the facts, the campaign was a success although it wasn't the rousing victory he sought.

Furthermore, where is there evidence that it was the lack of clear strategy that was the cause of the problems in Media-Atropene? Losing his baggage train was the culprit to this part of the campaign, but how is that a fault of grand strategy?

Similarly, implying that Octavian's settlement in 20 BC turned the disaster into a draw is misleading.

Grammar

'In Anatolia, the Parthians allied with Quintus Labienus, son of Caesar's former general and later antagonist Titus Labienus, penetrating deep into the west and defeating a Roman army under Decidius Saxa.' This sentence has no verb, Prthians is the subject of the sentence. Is should be: In Anatolia, the Parthians allied with Quintus Labienus, son of Caesar's former general and later antagonist Titus Labienus, penetrated deep into the west and defeated a Roman army under Decidius Saxa.

and

'. Antigonus was the only remaining son of former king Aristobulus II who the Romans deposed ' should say 'whom' instead of who, it is the object of the verb 'deposed.' 00:08, 28 November 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.20.115.206 (talk)

Inconsistency in the information of infobox
The information regarding the strength and the casualties of the both sides corresponds to the Antony's invasion of Parthia in 36 BC only, and not the earlier conflicts. --Z 18:39, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Dubious claim regarding deporting of 10,000 Romans to Merv
The article states "during this confrontation, the Parthians captured ten thousand Roman troops, most of whom were Germans from the Rhineland, and sent them as hostages to Merv. There, in what is now Turkmenistan, German vintners helped establish the local wine industry."

Isn't this a reference to the battle of Carrhae after which 10,000 Romans were deported to Merv? According to Iranica, it is not known how many of the POWs of the Antony's war suffered deportation. --Z 10:08, 28 June 2018 (UTC)