Talk:Battle of Ctesiphon (363)

Unclear
First section. This makes no sense: "After a number of his first inconclusive campaign, the Persian emperor, in his second campaign against Romans had captured Amida in 359, controlling the headwaters of the Tigris and the entrance to Asia Minor from the east.". --maru (talk) contribs 20:46, 21 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Fixed it, historically the first campaign was a dud and second had success so I translated that into the dialogue. - Patman2648 06:00, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Roman Victory?
I don't see, how this is "Tactical Roman victory", since the roman emperor Julian was killed in the battle, and his successor Emperor Jovian was forced to make peace on unfavourable terms. That doesn't sound like a victory at all!!! Just because they defeated a small portion of persian army, before they get defeated by the main sassanid army, doesn't mean that they were victorious.


 * Another question, where do those numbers come from? What are the sources? 70 dead, 2500 dead, 60,000, etc... where do these numbers come from?Hajji Piruz 04:24, 6 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi Hajji Piruz. Regarding Julian's death, you are probably discussing the Battle of Samarra, which is documented by Wiki as a "decisive Persian victory" after all, five districts were ceded because of the battle and Julian's death in a rear guard attack. However, I suppose the tactical part is that Julian's army, prior to Samarra outmanouevered the Sassanid forces leading to a very stark casualty figure ratio. Regarding the 70 vis-a-vis 2,500. I'm not sure where the source is for that, (its been here longer than I have been on this article page LOL), but if you have sources suggesting otherwise, I would appreciate you changing it. Thanks.--Arsenous Commodore 19:55, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Article seems very biased, seems like a beneficial article in commemoration of Julian, and not a historical article about the actual battle. Also any information, especially figures should have citations and sources otherwise is should be removed not the other way around. I could wrote all kinds of nonsense and tell people to remove it if they can find sources suggesting otherwise! 76.194.223.243 (talk) 18:36, 5 October 2008 (UTC)A.Abedin

Why this was a Roman victory
Because it was only days later at the Battle of Samarra that Julian was killed and Rome had to retreat. This battle was a Roman victory. That's explained above, I know, but someone keeps changing this to Persian victory so it needs emphasising that the Romans won this one. Dougweller (talk) 07:10, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Interesting to see how this wikipedia works. Elsewhere "arguments" like yours is considered OR and we are asked for RS sources claiming the exact words, now you come and make your OR, provide no sources whatsoever and revert. This is disgusting.Xashaiar (talk) 16:37, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * That's not actually what happened. First an IP came along and with no explanation changes this into a Persian victory. I correct this with the edit summary "Ctesiphon was clearly a Roman victory, it was later that Julian was killed and the Romans had to withdraw, as this article makes clear". You revert this writing "undoing unexplained POV based edit" which looks pretty much like a personal attack on me and completely in accurate - obviously it wasn't unexplained and as it reflects the facts (and as I couldn't give a hoot who won the battle, only that the article is accurate) is clearly not pov. Now you are calling my actions disgusting, a second personal attack. What you aren't doing is actually discussing the article or even disagreeing what what I've written in this section of the talk page. And for some reason, want me to provide sources rather than the IP who made the change or you who restored it. Exact words for what? The article says the battle was a Roman victory. Now if you want to say the article needs sources, of course it does. But the lead is supposed to reflect the article (and if it does, if there is any OR that would obviously be in the article body, not the lead), and as the article calls it a tactical victory for the Romans, then the lead shouldn't say the Persians won it, which is what you seem to want the article to say. Dougweller (talk) 18:05, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Look I know your agenda and have no interest whatsoever to argue with you (you have no idea what you are editing, you have have brought no source of resealable quality). If you care about "accuracy" of the article and not what I tend to think of, the battle was a "Sassanid strategic victory and Roman tactical victory" (or some say "Sassanid tactical failure and Roman strategic failure"). However since you are in the Eurocentric side and Wikipedia is by its very definition Eurocentric, there is no way to make wikipedia's ancient articles "accurate" (policies that make it impossible to write "accurate and non-Eurocentric" articles in wikipedia are: cite English language sources, avoid giving any weight to what appears against majority views,... I see that this policies are crucial for the success of wikipedia but inevitably makes wikipedia Eurocentric). One more thing: Do not follow my edits as you did in this article that you were not aware of until you re-edited my edit and only my edit. Xashaiar (talk) 12:04, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The Cambyses stuff is being discussed on several mailing lists I belong to. I'm well aware of the article and various disputes about the situation. Your revision of my edit is indeed an improvement but I see you couldn't resist a comment on me. I shall probably come back to it once I look at the various sources I've found through mailing lists, etc. The battle of Ctesiphon itself was a Roman victory according to the article, the campaign was not. Now if you have some sources calling it a strategic victory for the Sassanids, great. I've made it clear I don't care who won, I've got no reason whatsoever to root for either side, and once again you are making personal attacks and ignoring WP:AGF. And once again, I agree with the need for sources for the article (why don't you provide some), but the lead needs to reflect the article and I think it does now. Dougweller (talk) 13:09, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Afghanistan?
Not really sure why this is labeled as within the scope of the Wikiproject Afghanistan, as Ctesiphon doesn't seem to have been in territory ever central to, or even peripherally part of, Afghanistan. I would appreciate if someone could explain the relevance of Afghanistan here. Volkodlak (talk) 11:43, 23 December 2010 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Volkodlak (talk • contribs) 11:33, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Size of the armies
The article's main body states that "the main Sassanid army, commanded by Shapur and far larger than the one just defeated, was closing in quickly". This contradicts with information in the infobox of this article and that of Battle of Samarra. --Z 07:40, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Info Box Result
This is almost a direct a direct example of exactly what the MOS explicitly says not to do - '"Do not introduce non-standard terms like "decisive", "marginal" or "tactical", or contradictory statements like "decisive tactical victory but strategic defeat".

It's entertaining to be accused of POV pushing by a user called HistoryofIran trying to highlight a more pro Persian reading in the info box againt clear MOS guidelines--94.57.69.70 (talk) 11:04, 10 May 2021 (UTC)


 * As explained earlier; those are not nuances at all - your edit practically changes the history of the battle, contradicting what the article and sources actually state. And it is entertaining indeed. Anyways, per the rules, you have to reach WP:CONSENSUS here. If you keep this up you will be reported. --HistoryofIran (talk) 11:46, 10 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Nothing is changed about the result of the battle - that was a Roman victory, as stated by the sources, and the article. It's strategic impact, or lack thereof is something different, and that's why the MOS is as it is.94.57.69.70 (talk) 12:18, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
 * If others agree with you, I won't object. --HistoryofIran (talk) 15:10, 10 May 2021 (UTC)