Talk:Roman–Persian Wars/Archive 1

Comments
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

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)

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)
 * well the number of persian victories is still much higher than those of greeks and romans all together. for example xerxes scored 2, alexander scored at most 1. and if you take into account the persian wars with others than roman, then take into account the roman greek war as well which was a kind of greek victory. so overall romans rank three in antiquity.--Xashaiar (talk) 18:19, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

The romans had more victories (many of which are not even mentioned like one of the sacks of the persian capital city) and gained territory so overall it should be called a roman victory

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)

The number of victories for the romans now stands as 15 to the persian 11

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

Snippets
Searching for an old document and having been alerted recently about a discussion going on below -which I didn't feel comfortable to comment on, as I feel I have been uninvolved in the subject for too long- I happened upon this table which I created back in 2007 when the "Final Outcome" was still a hot issue on this talk page (see above). It is an overview of short citations taken from a couple of mainstream sources, which I thought could be heplful in the discussion before I decided that it was largely a 'what if' story anyway. Even so, I thought I'd share this bit of information here rather than have it sit on my hard drive. Maybe it could be put to use somewhere. Iblardi (talk) 20:09, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

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(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)

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)

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., , ,,. 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: 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)
 * 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
 * Roman-Parthian Wars and Roman-Sassanian Wars
 * Roman-Persian Wars and Byzantine-Persian Wars

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:. (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)

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.

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)

Question
Having difficulty understanding this statement: In Rome, there was understandable preoccupation with eastern policies, although the same was probably not as true for the Iranian empires, which particularly under the Sassanids, faced important powers to the East as well, and conquered a great empire: the Kushans.
 * "understandable" is not explained.
 * "although the same was probably not as true for the Iranian empires" - That the Romans were not preoccupied with the Iranian empires, or that the Iranian empires were not preoccupied with eastern policies.
 * "faced important powers to the East as well, and conquered a great empire: the Kushans.''" - is this why they were not preoccupied, or an aside fact.
 * Could be broken in to three separate sentences to aid clarity. Ceoil  sláinte 19:38, 19 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, the meaning (indeed not well'expressed) is that the Persians were not only preoccupied with the Romans, but they had other "businesses" in the East as well. I'll try to clarify that, Ceoil.--Yannismarou (talk) 06:47, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


 * With your modifications, it does at least now make grammatical sense, but is not very accurate. Saying that the Sassanids in particular were preoccupied with their eastern neighbours and the Kushan empire in particular makes little sense, since as I understand it the Sassanids conquered the Kushans within a few decades of establishing their empire, so that for the vast majority of their history there was no Kushan empire.


 * Regarding the first paragraph of the Historical Background section more generally, what is the evidence that the Sassanids had great eastern preoccupations that far exceeded Roman concerns on other fronts? I am not aware of the Sassanids playing any great role in India, which leaves only the steppe frontier. Rather than the Sassanids being orientated to the east (sorry!), the real preoccupation with other frontiers was a northern one, which applied to both empires, with the threat from steppe nomads, and in the Roman case Germanic peoples, being a major military problem for Rome and Persia alike. This was most apparent in the late fourth and fifth centuries, when the northern challenge to both empires was at its height and warfare between them virtually ceased as a result. Given the limitations of our knowledge of Sassanid deployments, it is hard to make any hard and fast statements about their military priorities, but in the case of the Romans the eastern frontier was clearly considered a smaller problem meriting smaller military resources than the northern one, if only because it was shorter and more defensible. In the early empire the total strength of the armies on the empire's European frontiers was far larger than that of those facing the Parthians; even within the eastern half of the empire it was the Danube frontier which was the main priority. Over the centuries the focus of strength gradually shifted eastwards, but even as late as the early sixth century four of the five Roman field armies were deployed on the Danube or near Constantinople, with only one permanently stationed in the East, and until the seventh-century crisis the field armies of the eastern frontier were never more than about equal in size to those on the Danube. Thus whereas in military terms you could certainly make a strong case that the eastern front was a secondary consideration for the Romans, I am not sure what concrete evidence there is to make a corresponding argument about the western front for either the Parthians or the Sassanids. Yet the view currently taken by article is quite the reverse of this.


 * Even in the cultural-ideological sphere, the argument made here seems highly questionable. There are reasons to think that Sassanid thinking placed a higher premium on the possibility of conquests from the Romans than vice versa. The Sassanids' view of themselves as the restorers of the Achaemenid empire created an ideological imperative to secure that empire's former territories; having achieved this on the eastern front at an early stage, one would expect this imperative to focus thereafter on the western lands held by the Romans. On the Roman side, by contrast, there was no particular ideological commitment to expansion into Mesopotamia, let alone Iran, whereas there was a considerable conservative school of thought which held that the frontiers of Augustus formed the ideal outlines of the empire and that attempted extension beyond this was unwise.


 * The contentions of the current article therefore seem to be quite at odds with the evidence. This is hardly surprising, since they seem to be based entirely on the views of Warwick Ball, a specialist in architecture and a polemicist whose own treatment of these wars is wildly distorted to the point of surrealism. The whole paragraph should go.


 * On another matter, you seem quite attached to the use of the word "declining" in reference to the Seleucids before the battles of Thermopylae and Magnesia. While the power of the Seleucid state had certainly declined considerably through the course of the third century, under Antiochus III it had actually been mounting a substantial revival, regaining Palestine and central Anatolia and forcing the Parthians and the Bactrian Greeks to submit. Antiochus had gone a long way towards restoring the Seleucid state to its former glory before he went head-to-head with the Romans, resulting in the revival coming to a crashing halt. Thus the word gives a misleading impression of the state of affairs and the significance of the Roman victories. It ought to go.
 * Zburh (talk) 17:04, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Frontier defences
The last portion of the Strategies and Military Tactics section seems to need some changes. The statement about the Roman limes of Diocletian's time remaining until the Arab conquests is wrong in a number of ways. On the Mesopotamian front the cessions made in 363 meant that the Romans no longer held the front line of defences that they had possessed in Diocletian's reign, including the pre-eminent fortress city of Nisibis. Very extensive fortification work was carried out by the Romans in the sixth century, including the foundation from scratch of Dara, which became the linchpin of the Roman defences on this sector. On the desert frontier, at some point (the chronology escapes me at the moment), a large proportion of the limes positions were abandoned, with greater reliance being placed thereafter on Arab clients for frontier defence.

The passage and large block of quotation on the wall of Gorgan seems out of place entirely. Discussion of Sassanid fortification work on the western frontier would be very helpful here; discussion of fortification work on a different frontier entirely, which bears no resemblance to anything on the frontier facing the Romans makes no sense at all, any more than a discussion of Hadrian's Wall would.

For the time being I'm cutting the lot. Zburh (talk) 17:46, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Maybe the Red Snake material, without having to put in the quotation as a whole, could be helpful for the "Historical Background" section or somewhere else to stress what Doug me mentioned above: "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."
 * About the "Limes", I'll have to look at it, and as far as the first paragraph of the "Historical Background" is concerned, I'll try to enrich it with further views as well. Any material or sources of yours are welcome. Thanks!--Yannismarou (talk) 19:54, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I rewrote the last paragraphs, treating the limes, Arabs, buffer states, fortifications, fortress cities issues as best as I could. About the limes, the sources I encountered confirm that they existed until the 7th century, but, being a part of an overall defense system, including the fortifications and fortress systems mentioned by Zburh. If I am wrong, then correct my edits, providing the appropriate sources. I also reinstated the quote, because IMO it has a broader importance; it has to do not only with the Red Snake but with the Sasanian military capability and prowess; the Roman-Sasanian comparison provided in this quote is IMO very interesting and adds to the article. I am open, of course, to suggestions and proposals. And a last question: Sasanian, Sassanian or Sassanid? Wikipedia is pro-Sassanid, but in the sources I see a tendency towards Sasanian.--Yannismarou (talk) 14:10, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Remarkably stable
I deplore the frontier remained remarkably stable as a half-truth. It, and the later discussion, disguise the real change: the first-century frontier was in the west of modern Iraq; the fourth-century frontier was in the east, at a different set of defensive lines, and a different strategic stalemate. (And the successful incursions, on both sides, lasted for years or decades before they were rolled back.) While minor compared to the Mediterranean basin as a whole, these were important for those who lived there. Can we have some more moderate language? (And the incursions, under Trajan, Aurelian, and Heraclius, should be mentioned in the lead.)  Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:30, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


 * "Remarkably stable" does not mean "completely static". Considering the number, duration, scale and intensity of the recurrent wars, the capacity of the participants on both sides for far-reaching conquests elsewhere, the limited physical obstacles and the fact that the frontier corresponded to no environmental, ethnic or religious divide, the lack of movement over seven centuries is quite staggering. The article does not "disguise" anything in this regard, it notes the various territorial changes that occurred at the relevant points in the narrative, while the cumulative changes are stated in the data box. Taking a long view of the wars overall, however, the overwhelming impression is one of extraordinary territorial continuity in spite of sustained and strenuous effort on both sides, and this is the proper point to highlight in the opening summary. Listing every single offensive that got any distance from the frontier (perhaps about two dozen, on a conservative count) in the introduction would mean duplicating a large proportion of the main text.
 * Zburh (talk) 17:41, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm closer to Zbuh, but I cannot be objective, since I did most of the editing! Therefore, if there is any alternative wording proposal, let's discuss it. Something else: after Zburh's criticism, I rewrote the first paragraph of "Historical Background". I'm open to comments, proposals and improvements.--Yannismarou (talk) 17:57, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I have to say, I am still not at all happy with the first paragraph of "Historical Background", which remains effectively a showcase for Warwick Ball's idiosyncrasies. My objections to the confused and misleading remarks on the eastern neighbours of the Parthians and Sassanids still stand, and I would like to add some others.


 * The statements about Roman interest in "the Eastern world" (whatever that means) are misplaced because references to "the East" in the context of Roman history usually relate chiefly to the eastern Mediterranean, a region which lay within the Romans' political, economic, cultural and military sphere in a way that the lands beyond the Euphrates did not. They are liable to be highly misleading when applied to Mesopotamia, the Caucasus and Iran. While the eastern Mediterranean was very alluring to the Romans, once they had subdued that region their attention turned to Europe and North Africa. From the end of the Republic to the later years of Trajan most of the aggression of the empire was directed north and west, conquering the northern Balkans, the Maghreb, north-western Spain, most of Britain and Dacia, and attempting unsuccessfully to conquer Germany and the remainder of Britain. These were the preferred "roads to glory". The completion of Roman control of Anatolia comprised the only expansive effort to the east in this period. It was only after all other avenues of expansion had been pursued to exhaustion that Roman interest in Parthia was rekindled.


 * The statement about Parthian relations with China tells us nothing - why on earth would a state originally based in Khurasan and West Turkestan not have dealings with China, a major player in the steppe world, before it made contact with a state in the far-off western Mediterranean? The Romans established relations with the Carthaginians, Antigonids, Seleucids, Ptolemies etc etc long before they had any dealings with Parthia. So what? All it tells us is that the original core territories of the two empires were widely separated from each other. What does that fact contribute to the article? What matters to the article is how the two came into contact with each other and what happened when they did.


 * More generally on Ball, an encyclopedia article simply should not be shaped by the writings of a (more or less self-confessed) polemicist, still less one who is not really an authority on the subject, and undoubtedly not one whose treatment of these wars is wildly distorted. It may seem as though I am on a personal hobbyhorse here, but while his work on archaeology and architecture (the stuff he actually knows well) is interesting he is simply not a fit person to be cited here.


 * If such a paragraph is to be included, it should be rewritten from scratch, using other sources. The cited collection by James Howard-Johnston would be a reasonable place to start, particularly the "Two Empires" article and its comparison of the respective resources, strategic preoccupations and internal problems of the Romans and Sassanids, while further material would be needed to bring the Parthians into the picture. Fundamentally, though, I do not really see the need for such a paragraph in any case. We have the general introduction, then the scene-setting, then launch into the main narrative. That seems perfectly stisfactory.


 * One more thing - you asked above about the Sassanid/Sasanian/Sassanian question. I agree that Sasanian is normally used in literature in English and would have no objection to adopting it here. I use Sassanid here because it seems to be the local convention and because I don't think it really makes much difference.
 * Zburh (talk) 18:04, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, but I still think we must somehow mention in the article that "for much of the period Sasanian Persia also fought frequent wars on it's Eastern frontier against the Chionites, Kidarotes, Hepthalites, Kushans, etc.", as Doug me said above.--Yannismarou (talk) 20:28, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Certainly something on the threat from the northern world would be helpful, since this was an important force in shaping the strategic environment in which the participants in these wars operated. The section on strategy etc seems like the appropriate point for it. However, as I have said previously, this pressure affected both empires - "for much of the period Rome also fought frequent wars on its northern frontier against the Sarmatians, Goths, Vandals, Gepids Lombards, Slavs, Huns, Kutrigurs, Avars etc" would be equally true and arguably even more important. Howard-Johnston argues that Rome's northern frontier, anchored only on rivers, was less easily defensible than Persia's, which had the mountain barriers of the Caucasus, Elborz and Hindu Kush for protection, and that one of the reasons why the Sassanids' could match the Romans despite the inferiority of their total economic resources was their ability to dedicate a larger proportion of their military resources to these wars than the Romans could (that's speculative of course, given the dearth of evidence on the Sassanids' military deployments, but plausible).
 * Zburh (talk) 18:43, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Towards FAC
After two successful GA and A-Class reviews, a MILHIST peer-review, a thorough copy-editing by Dank and a partial one by Ceoil, it is my duty to ask the editors watching, editing or simply interested in this article to point out if they think there is something left to be done here, before bringing the article to FAC.--Yannismarou (talk) 11:58, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I repeat my comment on "remarkably stable" as overblown. The boundary was at the western end of modern Iraq in Augustus' time; it reached the eastern edge under Constantine. This is misleading and should be toned down; I'd do it myself, but the article is fairly skimpy on the transfer of Northern Mesopotamia, and I would rather not consult the sources again. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:06, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Under Constantine's time were still in effect the favorable for the Romans terms of 299, and the Empire had in its possession territories east of Tigris. But in 363 some of these possessions were lost (e.g. Nisibis or Singara). Therefore the boundary under Constantine was not the same with the boundary under Heraclius, when we have a let's say a "final" settlement (final because the Arabs did not allow further Roman (Byzantine) - Persian wars by sweeping both of them!). Again the point as Zburh said is not that there were no territorial changes at all or that the frontier was static, but that it was stable enough, in the sense that neither side achieved any long-lasting changes drastically altering the situation in the eastern frontier. Territorial gains by either sided were limited and mostly ephemeral.


 * Anyway, although I agree with what Zburh said in our previous discussion on the matter, I'm not by default against this "toning down", but I wouldn't also like to mess the prose right now after some excellent ce with my clumsy English.--Yannismarou (talk) 18:49, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Added a draft. If you disagree with the specifics, feel free to tweak again. If you dispute largely, we have a problem. I would not call Heraclius' settlement final: it lasted for less than a decade, and we cannot tell if it would have held, or which side would have collapsed, in the absence of outside intervention. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:48, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your edits. I do not have a problem with "largely". I just removed the last sentence ("The war between Khosrau and Heraclius exhausted both empires, and the disputed region was entirely taken, soon thereafter, by the Moslems"), because this last war is treated in the last paragraph, and looked to me a bit repetitive (the territorail losses of both empires by the Arabs are also treated there). Two more issues: 1) My poor English again: What do we mean by "holding the Eastern Roman Empire"? Khosrau did not manage to take Constantinople, and Shapur just invaded (successfully at a certain extent) the eastern territories. Is this enough to say that they "held" the Roman empire? 2) Did Heraclius create "Roman provices in Persian territories"? Didn't he finally agree on the status quo ante, which was not exactly the so positive for the Romans under Constantine? Did he have the time to create these provinces? And if he did, how long did they last? Ten years? Is it worth mentioning in the lead? Just some thoughts of mine! Oh, and yes, I agree with you about "final settlement", and that is why I placed it within quotation marks above.--Yannismarou (talk) 07:54, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Various objections.
 * To say that Shapur I "held the Eastern Roman Empire" is a wild exaggeration - his campaigns never even entered southern Syria, Palestine, Egypt, western and northern Anatolia or the Balkans. It is unknown whether he ever established any garrisons in the areas he had overrun in northern Syria or central and eastern Anatolia; if he did, any such occupation was of very brief duration, at least in the case of Anatolia. To make the same statement about Khosrau II is much nearer the truth, but still innaccurate, since his forces never entered the Balkans and, while the evidence on this point is hazy, it seems that they never established a firm hold in Anatolia.
 * Galerius never mounted any major incursion into Persian territory. The territorial acquisitions he accomplished were cessions made as part of a peace agreement, which had not been occupied while hostilities were going on. As Yannismarou has already pointed out, Heraclius did not establish Roman control over Persian territories.
 * Since the point being made in this paragraph is not fundamentally about military mobility but territorial stability, the real question is not about momentary "incursions", but actual territorial changes, enduring beyond the duration of a single war. I have attempted a brief summary of these, which I hope you will find satisfactory.
 * Zburh (talk) 00:03, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Question
Is britannica.com allowed as a source? (  Ceoil  sláinte 17:44, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I do not see why not. After all it is Britannica itself, which guides the reader of the article about how to cite it in other works. But if there is a problem, I have no problem to remove the citation; there are other sources, which can be easily found and used by me.--Yannismarou (talk) 11:13, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with it personally, and the only fac objections I've seen, now that i think of it were against the 1911 edition. Otherwise the sourcing is excellent. (  Ceoil  sláinte 11:22, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Copyeditor's suggestion
One of the quotations seems odd to me. Appearing in the first sentence of the "Assessments" section, it says, "The Roman–Persian Wars have been characterized as 'futile' and both too 'depressing and tedious to contemplate with' ". I think "with" should be deleted for the sentence to make sense. Finetooth (talk) 00:02, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, and thanks again for your copy-editing.--Yannismarou (talk) 07:26, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Congrats everyone!
Congrats on the FA!Ardeshire Babakan (talk) 19:47, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Tags

 * ''The only lasting conquest by force was Septimius Severus' annexation of northern Mesopotamia in 195–198 AD. The last of these wars seemed to end the territorial inertia when Khosrau II's Sassanid forces occupied huge swathes of Roman territory for many years and brought the Roman Empire close to destruction.

This is flatly unacceptable.
 * It implies that Alexander had a causal relation to Khosrau II, four centuries later.
 * Alexander?! Who? Nobody called Alexander is mentioned. What are you talking about?
 * There is no implication of any causal relationship. Could you explain how this supposed implication is meant to work please? Zburh (talk) 16:53, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

We should decide whether the intro is chronological or analytic; I should prefer the lattetr.
 * You have a very short memory. The intro was a great deal less chronological until you started demanding that instead of simply recognising the prevailing territorial inertia, it should duplicate the main text by itemising every single individual occasion on which an army so much as set foot across the frontier and calling it an exception. We had a perfectly satisfactory analytical introduction until you insisted on turning it into a chronological description of events which were already covered in their proper place in the main text. Zburh (talk) 16:53, 30 July 2008 (UTC)


 * It asserts that Khosrau II occupied huge swathes of Roman territory (a value judgment)
 * You don't know what a value judgment is. "Good" and "bad" are value judgments. "Big" and "small" are not. Zburh (talk) 16:53, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

He occupied less than Shapur I and for a shorter time.
 * What you say here is not only wrong, it's spectacularly wrong. Try actually reading some books about the subject. If you can't be bothered, try reading the text of this article. Try reading what I said the last time you started up this nonsense about Shapur "holding the Roman East". Go somewhere, anywhere that you can get some basic grasp of the topic before you start posting inversions of fact like this. Zburh (talk) 16:53, 30 July 2008 (UTC)


 * It asserts that he brought (single handed) the Roman Empire close to destruction. This omits the contributions of the Lombards and the Slavs; and it is original research.
 * There was no Lombard contribution. The main Lombard conquests in Italy had taken place decades earlier, and the incremental conquest of most of what remained was a gradual process lasting until the middle of the eighth century. The loss of tiny chunks of territory in an isolated, peripheral and impoverished province posed no threat to the survival of the empire.
 * The Slavs (and their rulers/patrons the Avars) did pose a major threat, which is mentioned in the relevant section of the main text. However, the collapse of the Roman position in the Balkans was a direct result of the disasters in the east, which led to Roman forces being withdrawn from Europe to fight the Persians. Prior to that the Romans had been doing rather well on the Danube front. Consequently, it was all part of the same crisis, in which the Persians were the principal moving force, not the Avars and Slavs.
 * Also, to reiterate, this is an introduction. If I had had my way these specific individual events, which belong in the main text, would not have been discussed here at all. If they are to be included (which they were only at your insistence), they have to dealt with in a summary fashion, which means not including every last detail.
 * No, it is not original research. It is a commonplace observation among writers on the subject. Zburh (talk) 16:53, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

The Arabs may have endangered the survival of the Byzantine state, but they were rather more successful than Khosrau.
 * There is no "may" about it. They did. So did Khosrau. The Arabs were indeed more successful, in that they managed to hold what they had taken whereas the Persians eventually lost it, but the degree of initial success, and the severity of the threat at its height, was very similar. Zburh (talk) 16:53, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

If this stands, I will move to reconsider the FA status; this is a standing embarrassment. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:04, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * This is just astounding. Zburh (talk) 16:53, 30 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Sept, you know the respect I have for your person, but I honestly believe that declarations like the one in your closing sentence are nothing but helpful (and contradict previous statements of yours that your main problem is "largely" and not the way the various historical events are presented). And unfortunately, tagging the article was a vengiful act not in accord with WP relevant policies. And you know that! This was also not an action corresponding to your high caliber as an editor. At least, this is something I'd never have done to an article you would have worked the hell on it. And, right or wrong, I did expect a similar attitude from you, and Ifeel personally disappointed.


 * If there is a disagreement, there is always room for discussion; implied or not threats (concerning the article's status I mean) do not add anything. And, after all, you should know that FA status is never judged by one sentence. Whether this sentence is wrong or not, my personal experience says that there is no chance this article to lose its star in FAR. And, if you want, we bet on that!


 * To clarify some things: I reverted your edit not because I strongly support the current version, but because yours – IMO always – was more flawed:
 * "Several campaigns succeeded in occupying territory for years, in two cases for a couple decades, but all but one of these were reversed;"


 * Sept, this article is read also by readers who know nothing about the topic! The first task of a FA article is to introdice them to the subject. Even I got confused with this sentence of yours, and, though not a professional historian, I am working some months on this article.
 * "Several campaigns": Which ones? The lead, the same paragraph already refers to the cases of 299, 361 and 591. Are these campaigns you mention the same or different? If they are different, which exactly they are?
 * It's a general statement. The cases I was thinking of were 114, 260, 299 and 591, but all the others fit under this.
 * "in two cases for a couple decades". Again, which are all these cases? Since 299, 361 and 591 are mentioned, I can only think about one: Khosrau vs Heraclius.
 * The Persian incursions under Shapur and Khosrau both lasted a couple of decades.
 * "but all but one of these were reversed". Again which is this one? I can only think of Septimius Severus, but his case is mentioned separately in exactly the next sentence. And the thread of the sentence you introduce combined with the next sentence (having a semicolon separating them) does nothing but to further confuse the reader.
 * The Roman conquest of Iraq, which is divided between Carus, Diocletian, and Constantine. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:24, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Where do you get this stuff? Carus made no recorded conquests. Likewise Constantine. The Roman acquisitions in the reign of Diocletian were cessions rather than conquests, being the product of a negotiated settlement, not seizure by force. Zburh (talk) 16:53, 30 July 2008 (UTC)


 * These are the reasons I decided to revert you. Maybe wrong, but guided strictly by what I regarded best for the article. Do you want to rephrase? Ok, let's discuss it, but I do believe that the specific proposal of yours makes things worse. And I do have some remarks about your three comments above:


 * I cannot say that I disagree with you. Yes, maybe the reador gets the wrong impression about a causal relation between Khosrau and Severus. The solution here is to place better this sentence IMO: "The only lasting conquest by force was Septimius Severus' annexation of northern Mesopotamia in 195–198 AD." And not to erase the two last periods of the paragraph. But again this is no way a terrible flaw! There is room for improvement, yes, but this does not mean that the current wording is bad or that FA status is endangered!
 * "He occupied less than Shapur I and for a shorter time." I am not sure I agree with that. Did Shapur I occupy Egypt? Did he control Anatolia in the way Khosray control it? I do not think your assessment is accurate.
 * "he brought (single handed) the Roman Empire close to destruction". Indeed, he brought it close to destruction! His troops were in Chalcedon! Yes, not single-handed, but for almost 20 years he inflicted a series of defeats no other Persian leader before him (not even Shapur) had achieved. Yes, it was with the collaboration of the Avars he brought the Romans close to destruction, but he did it. Do you think that not menioning the Avars in the lead (something which is extensively analyzed in the relevant "Climax" section) is an ommission. Add it! "Assisted by the Avars, Khosrau brought the Roman Empire close to destruction". Or something like that. No problem! But where is the POV?! And being POV why (and for which side?! I do not even understand that!!)?
 * Nonsense. The Arabs also reached the Bosphorus and held Egypt and North Africa, which Khosrau did not; yet the Byzantine state survived. This is WP:PEACOCK, by another of our Iranian nationalists.
 * I asked you to compare Shapur with Khosrau, and not with the Arabs. Sept, I am not an Iranian! I am Greek and sentimentally pro-Byzantine; I have no reason to defend Iranian nationalism, but the Empire was indeed brought close to destruction.--Yannismarou (talk) 15:36, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Source, please. If the Arabs did more than Khosrau (do you dispute this?) and did not destroy it, then he can scarcely have come close to doing so. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:51, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh come on! You really want me to go through all the secondary sources?! No problem, if this is what you want. I do not know if the whether the Arabs or the Persians-Avars did more to bring the Empire closer to the destruction, but they both did a lot!--Yannismarou (talk) 16:28, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * These are my comments on your remarks. I close reiterating my high respect for your person, but this does not mean that I have to accept an edit of yours, which, as I said above, I believe make things worse. Or that I'll justify your double tagging of the whole article for one and a half sentence you disagree with.


 * Lookng forward to your follow-up remarks.--Yannismarou (talk) 07:40, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I tagged a section for a sentence which is both badly written and blatant nationalism (I can only conclude that Yannismarou has no notion of the force of the last of these wars; in this context, it is unnatural to read it as chronologically last, because idiom requires it be read as the war last mentioned.
 * Sept, Shapur is not the same case with Khosrau. The threat for the Byzantine state was bigger during the last war, and this is historical reality.--Yannismarou (talk) 15:36, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I will do another draft. Generality in a lead should be acceptable; but the specific examples I had in mind were Trajan's campaign of 114 and Shapur's in the 260s; neither mentioned in the lead. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:24, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Generality is acceptable, but it must be clear to the ignorant reader what you mean.--Yannismarou (talk) 15:36, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I've included more examples; but these may not be the best ones (which is one reason to be vague). Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:51, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I still believe it is wrong to put at the same level Shapur's threat with Khosrau's, and that you shouldn't remove the "territorial inertia" thread; Khosrau's territorial gains lasted longer (for almost 25 years some of them), were larger (he occupied Egypt and reached Chalcedon), and had a huger impact (Eastern territories were almost all the empire at the time!). But I'll not revert; since we have a stalemate here with different perspectives, I'll ask from further input by other editors.--Yannismarou (talk) 15:58, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * almost 25 years some of them And how long did Shapur keep Carrhae? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:14, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Is Carrhae the whole Roman East?--Yannismarou (talk) 16:25, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The suggestion that Khosrau broke the territorial inertia, considering that his conquests were all reversed, seems an extraordinary claim, requiring extraordinary evidence. (He may have broken both Empires; but that's not the same thing. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:14, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * No such claim was ever made. Had you read the text, you would have seen that it said he seemed to have broken it. He seized territories on a scale which far exceeded anything that either side had accomplished before, and held them longer than most or all (depending on whether you are talking about somewhere like Dara, held for 24 years, or somwhere like Alexandria, held for 10 years) previous seizures of territory, excluding the conquests of Septimius Severus. Hence, the territorial inertia seemed to have been decisively and unprecedentedly shattered. However, in the event the war ended with the restitution of the status quo ante, so that in the end the inertia was reasserted. Just as the text of the article said.
 * The baffling thing is that this part of the text was only added in response to your complaint that the general, overall, introductory recognition of a prevailing territorial inertia failed to include a lengthy itemisation of all exceptions, or near-exceptions, or things merely resembling exceptions. Then when you get what you asked for you complain that it goes against the point about inertia - the very point that you were demanding should be undermined in the first place! Zburh (talk) 16:53, 30 July 2008 (UTC)


 * And I also fail to understand what Iranian nationalism has to do with what we discuss here. Totally irrelevant! "Nonsense" per your way of commenting.--Yannismarou (talk) 16:01, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Well these are the drawbacks of your new draft:
 * You don't make clear that the only long-lasting conquest in general was Septimius Severus'. It looks just like one of all the other conquests, which is not true. Your rewriting obscures this fact, and in this case I am the one who can now accuse you of Iranian nationalism!
 * Shapur did not "hold" Roman East. He temporarily occupied Eastern Roman territories.
 * Khosrau indeed "held" Roman East, and the difference between the two cases should be obvious to the reader.
 * I still believe the previous version was much better than yours in terms of historical accuracy (int terms of structure the one proposed by you is possibly better).
 * I kept your changes until we have further input, but I made clear in the lead the difference between Shapur's and Khosrau's cases.--Yannismarou (talk) 16:19, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Is this acceptable by you:

"The Persians twice occupied huge swathes of Roman eastern territory, under Shapur I and Khosrau II but with no lasting effects. In the second case they held Roman East for a couple of decades, but they were finally driven out in a counter-offensive led by Heraclius. The Romans succeeded in establishing a position behind the Persian lines on a number of occasions&mdash;for some years under Trajan in 113&mdash;but were unable or unwilling to hold their gains, except for Septimius Severus' conquest  of northern Mesopotamia by force in 195–198 AD."


 * Huge swathes is absolutely unacceptable.
 * From the point of view under discussion, it makes no difference whether the East was held by Shapur or by Odenathus; the Mesopotamian limes had ceased to exist. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:41, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * ok "Roman Eastern territories" with no "swathes". Well, it makes a difference. Odenathus was not a Persian! He was their enemy as a matter of fact. And what you say about the "limes" is also not accurate. "Limes" were modified and incorporated in a broader defensive scheme, but they never ceased to exist. As far as "destruction" is concerned, you asked for sources, didn't you? Howard-Johnston:


 * "The East Roman Empire seemed doomed to destruction in the winter of 621/622." I do not think he is an Iranian nationalist.--Yannismarou (talk) 16:45, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Did Odenathus defend them? Did he, ever, have the resources to do so? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:57, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Septentrionalis, it does seem POV to suggest that Romans were "unwilling" to win a war, which is what your proposed version suggested. I also do understand that the current wording is kind of odd and akward, and Shapour's conquest was of a different nature than Khsorow's...I personally prefer Yannismarou's version, but my intention was to make you happy as well by combing both versions, which obviously didn't work.--CreazySuit (talk) 17:07, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with Yannismarou, Septentrionalis's proposed version is no less POV or inaccurate than the last version...As a compromise, I combined both versions in order to achieve NPOV.--CreazySuit (talk) 16:49, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Tell me, what POV do you see me as defending? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:53, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * And in the process CreazySuit suppressed all the Roman penetrations, including Trajan, and claimed that Heraclius reversed the conquests of Shapur. Away with it! Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:53, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree, but instead of getting angry with somebody trying to help (maybe in the wrong way), and instead of adding your beloved tags, can you explain me how can you say that "it makes no difference whether the East was held by Shapur or by Odenathus." You're evoking historical accuracy, and you make exorbitant historical assertions like this one? Summing up together the conquests of a Persian and of a Roman's ally?! Is this your historical accuracy?--Yannismarou (talk) 16:58, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Odenathus' position in the Middle East did break the territorial stalemate. He could not hold the East with a line of fortified frontiers, as the Romans did; he couldn't afford to. He happened to be conquered by Aurelian, which restored the status quo before Valerian; but it might not have happened that way. (I don't insist on putting any of this in the article; it's off-topic.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:13, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, but we speak about Shapur and the Persians. What is off-topic is to use Odenathus as an argument in order to support your putting together as similar Shapur's and Khosrau's cases.--Yannismarou (talk) 17:18, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * And calling Heraclius' short-lived peace a final settlement is preposterous; we have no idea if the Sassanids (or Heraclius) would have kept it if they had survived. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:13, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * My version does not present Heraclius' peace as a final settlement.--Yannismarou (talk) 17:18, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * CreazySuit's does. Follow the identation here. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:44, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * That's not what I wrote. Hadrian was unwilling, and may have been unable, to retain Trajan's conquests. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:13, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Sept, you restored the previous version of yours, which once again presents Shapur's and Khosrau's cases as similar. Which is not the case. I once again propose this version with a tweak you proposed:


 * "The Persians twice occupied Roman eastern territories, under Shapur I and Khosrau II but with no lasting effects. In the second case they held Roman East for a couple of decades, but they were finally driven out in a counter-offensive led by Heraclius. The Romans succeeded in establishing a position behind the Persian lines on a number of occasions&mdash;for some years under Trajan in 113&mdash;but were unable or unwilling to hold their gains, except for Septimius Severus' conquest  of northern Mesopotamia by force in 195–198 AD."

Please tell me what is wrong with this version. And if you insist that Shapur "held" Roman East then you have to provide sources. Because it is clear that Khosrau indeed held it. And, please, don't use again this Odenathus argument.--Yannismarou (talk) 17:14, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I am still not ok. But I'll follow an advice Giorgos had given me, and I'll leave it for today. Let's discuss it again tomorrow with more calm and clear minds. I'll still ask for third-party input. Cheers.--Yannismarou (talk) 17:24, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Septentrionalis, what kind of compromise is this? You just restored your preferred version with little or no changes.--CreazySuit (talk) 17:26, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I adopted Y's text, changing a couple of words. Do either of you deny that the position of the Middle East under Odenathus was not the standard deadlock, and the status quo was not restored until Aurelian? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:29, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * No, Sept, you did not change "a couple of words". You presented again Shapur's and Khosrau's cases as entailing the same territorial and political-military repercussions, which is not accurate.--Yannismarou (talk) 17:45, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, there is now a separate half-sentence about each of them. You are welcome to tweak. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:50, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

On another note: If Trajan disappears again, as in this edit, I will be at least willing to endorse a RfC on the offending editor, and I will tag the entire article for bias. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:29, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I hope you understand you're getting a bit "paranoid". It seems tempting to me right now to list all your threats 1) towards other editors, 2) concerning the article's status. And you are also edit-warring. --Yannismarou (talk) 17:45, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for striking. No, I'm declaring what I shall do, if I need to walk away. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:50, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Announcing an RfC personally for an editor, because he removed one of the two instances Trajan is referred in the lead! I cannot take that seriously! Honestly!--Yannismarou (talk) 18:02, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Check the diff. That was the only mention. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:07, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I hope you noticed that you have Trajan twice mentioned now in the lead. Just a remark.--Yannismarou (talk) 17:52, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:01, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Much better.--Yannismarou (talk) 18:03, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm removing the two tags... the Roman Empire was on the verge of collapsing after Khosrau's expansion to the east - this is neither nationalistic nor inaccurate, it is a fact supported by many sources. - Fedayee (talk) 21:17, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * This is vandalism. I shall be reverting once; anyone who then removes them shall be reported accordingly, to WP:AIV. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:29, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Pmanderson, removing the tag is not vandalism. There are people who clearly disagree with your assessment of the article's state, hence it's a content dispute. The policy of WP:EDITWAR and WP:3RR apply in this situation. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 22:35, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * And the tag shows that there is a content dispute; pursuing the dispute is not vandalism, but edit-warring; removing the tag is. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:57, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Why the lead needs revision
[RFC now commented out. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:04, 16 December 2008 (UTC)]

My own fault, really; this should have been a strong do not promote. at the FAC. If I had done more than glance at the points about which I was specifically consulted during the FA nomination, I would have objected then; but as it is, the second paragraph of the lead manages to violate 1a, b, c, d, and e of WP:WIAFA; if this is fixed, it will indeed deserve the star it holds. The present text (and I must say present, hence 1e) runs:

''Occupation of enemy territory was usually local or brief and almost always reversed by force or negotiation. Durable cessions of territory in the border zone were made in Mesopotamia in 299 and 363 AD and in the Transcaucasus in 591 AD, but these were not the result of land being seized by force. Rather, each was the product of negotiations in which a ruler's negotiating position was severely weakened by his personal circumstances. The only lasting conquest by force was Septimius Severus' annexation of northern Mesopotamia in 195–198 AD. The last of these wars seemed to end the territorial inertia when Khosrau II's Sassanid forces occupied huge swathes of Roman territory for many years and brought the Roman Empire close to destruction. However, a counter-offensive led by Heraclius enabled the Romans to regain their lost territory in a final the peace settlement.


 * 1a: The last of these wars seemed to end the territorial inertia when. The last war mentioned is from 195 AD; the occasion now mentioned is from 591 AD. Bad writing; not that territorial inertia is a clear metaphor to begin with.


 * 1b: This omits all Roman successes except Septimius, including Trajan's conquest of Mesopotamia, which was voluntarily abandoned by Hadrian


 * 1c: The final peace settlement here lasted eight years before the Sassanian empire ceased to exist; other settlements had lasted for a century.


 * 1d: Iranian nationalism, root and branch; a WP:PEACOCK violation on Khosrau. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:59, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

My proposed wording (not that I insist on it, but it ahould make clear what points are omitted above) was:
 * [as above, down to] ''...Rather, each was the product of negotiations in which a ruler's negotiating position was severely weakened by his personal circumstances.


 * ''The Persians twice conquered Roman eastern territories, under Shapur I and Khosrau II. The first time, the Romans took a couple decades to regain their position from the Persians and the Arabs; in the second case Khosrau himself held the Roman East for a couple of decades, but the Persians were finally driven out in a counter-offensive led by Heraclius. The Romans succeeded in establishing a position behind the Persian lines on a number of occasions—Trajan held all of Mesopotamia for some years, but Hadrian decided it was untenable—but Septimius Severus' conquest of northern Mesopotamia by force in 195–198 AD was the only permanent conquest for either side.

Yannismarou's comment (copied from the closed FARC)

 * My comment:Sept copied his comments in the closed FARC, so I did the same thing. These are my remarks:


 * On June 28, Sept commented "I deplore the frontier remained remarkably stable as a half-truth", (see here), and although he received a well-grounded and analytic response by both me and Zburh he temporarily kept his silence and decided to reinstate his arguments (without actually answering to me and Zburh) on July 8 (see here). After a brief response of mine, he added this draft, extending the lead, changing its structure, and inserting a series of historical inaccuracies, which were pointed out by both me and Zburh here. Zburh proposed a compromise version, insisting on territorial changes (this one close to the current version), and restoring historical accuracy Sept's draft had compromised. This is important because later Zburh faced the accusation of "Iranian nationalism". You can compare Sept's draft and argumentation, and then Zburh's draft and supporting argumentation, in order to make your own judgment. I want to emphasize on two things: 1) Sept stated during this discussion "Added a draft. If you disagree with the specifics, feel free to tweak again. If you dispute largely (he meant the particular word, which was thus in italics) we have a problem." This statement of his contradicts most of his arguments in the current FARC, which focus on "the specifics". 2) After Zburh introduced his compromise draft, Sept remained silent for twenty days! He did not respond to Zburh's arguments (maybe because he couldn't; see again here in fine), and did not comment on the draft. In the law school they told us that such a long silence entails acceptance, but this is no law school, and I'll let the reviewers again to make their own judgments here. One thing you should also check is Zburh's civility and politeness during all this time. This is important for the next episodes of our story!
 * Sept does not express any objection again about the lead; he waits; he does not say anything during FAC; he keeps silent, and suddenly on July 27 he introduces unilaterally and after no discussion this confusing and historical inaccurate change. On July 28 I revert him back, trying to be polite, and asking him to discuss the issue in the talk page (see my edit summary). And then we have the beginning of wrath! His "mature" response was to start tagging the article (the same version he hadn't tagged for 20 days, and although he had said that his main problem was "largely" and not "the specifics"), and to address threats towards all directions (I have gathered them at the end of this intervention). His vengiful tactic of tagging the article has been repeatedly criticized by third-party editors and subsequently reverted by third-party editors. The ensuing discussion is deploring but if you have the patience read it till the end. I do not have the appetite to repeat all the details here; the point is that Sept suddenly realized that now all the details are important to him, and if he is not satisfied:
 * He will ask for an RfC for the article.
 * He will initiate an RfC against particular users who do not agree with him.
 * He will report almost everybody to AIV.
 * He will initiate a FARC (oups! He already did it! He is a man of his word!)
 * He will keep tagging the article till the end of the world.
 * He will regard all of us as Iranian nationalists (although I kindly asked him to label me as Greek, therefore Byzantine nationalist, which I may deserve!).

I do not have much to say about the FA criteria. Just read the article and see for yourself! It is thoroughly researched, properly cited, copy-edited by Dank55, Ceoil, Casliber, and Finetooth (last copy-editing after Tony's comments in FAC). The only person who regards it as POV is Sept. The only person causing edit-wars is again Sept (and it is hillarious to use his own edit-wars for evoking violation of criterion 1e!) What else can I say?! Oh, yes, some brief answers to Sept's aforementioned arguments:


 * "The last of these wars seemed to end the territorial inertia when Khosrau II's Sassanid". If you think the prose is not perfect, tweak it (by the way, your prose skllls as presented in all the drafts you proposed are much inferior, and all your versions worse than the current one!), but how can you say that the reader may not understand that we speak about Heraclius' war, when there is the "when ... " part of the sentence, and since "the last of these wars" refers to the Roman-Persian Wars as a whole. The solution here, in case you want to introduce an improvement, is a minor tweak like a better paragraph-splitting I just did; not all this fuss you caused.
 * Really? And 591 or 195-198 were done by whom? Not the Romans?! And, after all, the paragraph speaks about "durable sessions". All the ones mentioned: two Romans (195-198 and 591) and two Persians (299 and 363) were "durable", and one of them, the one achieved in 195-198 was "permanent". Trajan's was neither durable nor permanent. As the article accurately says: "Trajan died in 117, before he was able to reorganize the effort to consolidate Roman control over the Parthian provinces." Now, where is the POV or the historical inaccuracy again? And, by the way, in your own edit of July 27 (the ideal one for you!), which I initially reverted, I see no Trajan. So, on July 27 Trajan's omission did not violate 1b, but on July 30 it does violate it!
 * "in a final peace settlement". As far as the Persian-Wars are concerned, it was permanent. We had no other! Yes, we could have had, if the Arab "tsunami" wouldn't occur. But the statement is not inaccurate. This was the last peace settlement in a series of wars lasting approximately 700 years. Nevertheless, if this is a problem, personally I have no problem to remove this particular thread, and leave the sentence like that: "However, a counter-offensive led by Heraclius enabled the Romans to regain their lost territory".
 * Ok, no comment! Howard-Johnston (among others) is PEACOCK and Iranian nationalist! The Empire was on the verge of destruction and this is a fact! By the way, I and Zburh could also accuse you of true Iranian nationalism, when you argued that Shapur "held" Roman East, which never happened! And whatever you say you are not convincing at all, arguing that Shapur's and Khosrau's threats were of the same or similar importance.


 * Maybe redundant, but in order to have a broader prespective of the whole issue and Sept's tactics, I thought I should collect and expose here all the threats he managed to articulate within some hours:
 * For a start, as far as the article itself is concerned, if we do not agree with his drafts FARC and dispure resolutions are the only solutions.
 * Concerning personal comments, Sept declares that some users are in general dishonest.
 * Zburh in particular is "semi-literate" and an "Iranian nationalist". I honestly believe and I have to voice my opinion loudly here, that this was the worst of all comments. The person who has worked that much in this article, has attempted to promote compromises, the person who never offended anybody, and was always civil, the person with the profoundest knowledge of the topic among all of us, this person to be called "semi-literate", and "Iranian nationalist"?
 * Here another "offending" editor is threatened by the (later temporarily banned for edit-warring) Sept with an RfC, because he removed one of the two repetitive threads Trajan was mentioned!
 * And here everybody not agreeing with him is reported to AIV for vandalism of course!


 * I close this long comment, apologizing for its lentgh and for obliging you to read it (whoever of you managed to do that deserves my humble admiration!), but I thought I had to give a comprehensive presentation of the events, at least in the way I see them. In order to be fair, I have also to say that all this story is not just Sept's fault; CreazySuit and Larno Man wanted honestly to help but sometimes they achieved the opposite result. But I also have to recognize that at the same time they were provoked by Sept's bitter comments (see above).


 * Oh, and something else: Sept initially edited his above objections in FARC in order to to see whether FA is worth anything at all. FARC was closed as too early, and after Zburh removed "final" in order to satisfy Sept's worries. I stress here that personally I disagree with the removal of "final". Previous prose was better. Thank you again for your patience!--Yannismarou (talk) 18:05, 31 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Whatever my conduct, and I did go too far after repeated removal of dispute tags, it has nothing to do with the contents of the article. I remain the same editor whose opinion Yannismarou asked two weeks ago; and none of this defends the present text, which is incomplete, inaccurate, and misleading. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:24, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I never said that I do not personally respect you. I do (although I never had the pleasure to read your opinion on the issue you mention, and for which I asked it for!). And, please, allow in the section with my comments to choose the heading or the bolded introductory words I prefer!--Yannismarou (talk) 18:46, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * As long as there's a separate section for the content issue, please. Your heading here is fine. As for the Briges: they're demmed obscure. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:55, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Text repeated from above

 * Sept's initial objections and Zburh's answers: In order to offer a better overview of the issue in question here (which changes all the time, by the way), I copied here Sept's initial objections as expressed above and Zburh's answers (absolutely comprehensive IMO):

"This is flatly unacceptable.
 * It implies that Alexander had a causal relation to Khosrau II, four centuries later.
 * Alexander?! Who? Nobody called Alexander is mentioned. What are you talking about?


 *  Comment: Alexander Severus. If he were not mentioned, there would be a much deeper problem with the article. Does Zburh really'' not recognize him? (Did he look?) If so, how then can his replies be comprehensive? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:27, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Alexander Severus is not mentioned in the quoted text to which your comments related. Alexander Severus is not mentioned anywhere in the introduction about which you were commenting. The introduction, and indeed the quoted portion of it, does mention Septimius Severus, which may be the cause of your apparent confusion. Are you under the impression that they were the same person? If so, I must inform you that they were two different individuals.
 * Oh, and if you are talking to me, you might use the second person, not the third. It's generally considered a matter of basic courtesy. Zburh (talk) 01:52, 1 August 2008 (UTC)


 * There is no implication of any causal relationship. Could you explain how this supposed implication is meant to work please? Zburh (talk) 16:53, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

We should decide whether the intro is chronological or analytic; I should prefer the lattetr.
 * You have a very short memory. The intro was a great deal less chronological until you started demanding that instead of simply recognising the prevailing territorial inertia, it should duplicate the main text by itemising every single individual occasion on which an army so much as set foot across the frontier and calling it an exception. We had a perfectly satisfactory analytical introduction until you insisted on turning it into a chronological description of events which were already covered in their proper place in the main text. Zburh (talk) 16:53, 30 July 2008 (UTC)


 * It asserts that Khosrau II occupied huge swathes of Roman territory (a value judgment)
 * You don't know what a value judgment is. "Good" and "bad" are value judgments. "Big" and "small" are not. Zburh (talk) 16:53, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

He occupied less than Shapur I and for a shorter time.
 * What you say here is not only wrong, it's spectacularly wrong. Try actually reading some books about the subject. If you can't be bothered, try reading the text of this article. Try reading what I said the last time you started up this nonsense about Shapur "holding the Roman East". Go somewhere, anywhere that you can get some basic grasp of the topic before you start posting inversions of fact like this. Zburh (talk) 16:53, 30 July 2008 (UTC)


 * It asserts that he brought (single handed) the Roman Empire close to destruction. This omits the contributions of the Lombards and the Slavs; and it is original research.
 * There was no Lombard contribution. The main Lombard conquests in Italy had taken place decades earlier, and the incremental conquest of most of what remained was a gradual process lasting until the middle of the eighth century. The loss of tiny chunks of territory in an isolated, peripheral and impoverished province posed no threat to the survival of the empire.
 * The Slavs (and their rulers/patrons the Avars) did pose a major threat, which is mentioned in the relevant section of the main text. However, the collapse of the Roman position in the Balkans was a direct result of the disasters in the east, which led to Roman forces being withdrawn from Europe to fight the Persians. Prior to that the Romans had been doing rather well on the Danube front. Consequently, it was all part of the same crisis, in which the Persians were the principal moving force, not the Avars and Slavs.
 * Also, to reiterate, this is an introduction. If I had had my way these specific individual events, which belong in the main text, would not have been discussed here at all. If they are to be included (which they were only at your insistence), they have to dealt with in a summary fashion, which means not including every last detail.
 * No, it is not original research. It is a commonplace observation among writers on the subject. Zburh (talk) 16:53, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

The Arabs may have endangered the survival of the Byzantine state, but they were rather more successful than Khosrau.
 * There is no "may" about it. They did. So did Khosrau. The Arabs were indeed more successful, in that they managed to hold what they had taken whereas the Persians eventually lost it, but the degree of initial success, and the severity of the threat at its height, was very similar. Zburh (talk) 16:53, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

If this stands, I will move to reconsider the FA status; this is a standing embarrassment. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:04, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * This is just astounding. Zburh (talk) 16:53, 30 July 2008 (UTC)"

I close this intervention welcoming this RfC as the proper procedure (I told from the first moment that FARC was totally inappropriate, and vengeful tagging as well), and I am waiting for third-party comments.--Yannismarou (talk) 18:13, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * This would not be an FA, as it stands, if FA meant anything. I should have seen this atrocious lead and opposed in time. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:24, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Suggestions
If all of you don't mind me butting in here; I've read much of the comments here and have gone over the article's intro and body. Overall the article is sound and thoroughly cited, but Septentrionalis (i.e. User:Pmanderson) does raise some valid points about the introduction. The first thing I would change is the "territorial inertia" phrase; it is awkward and ambiguous. I think a better phrase can be chosen, or simply none at all, starting the paragraph from here: "Khosrau II's Sassanid forces occupied huge swathes of Roman territory for many years and brought the Roman Empire close to destruction." Instead of saying "huge swathes" here, which may be true but it is rather subjective and colorful, it would be best to be specific here by spelling out the exact extent of territories that were temporarily captured by the Sassanids before Heraclius' counter offensive (for example, "as far west as Egypt and Anatolia"). Also, instead of saying "close to destruction," which is cited with Howard-Johnston (2006), page 85, wouldn't it be better to show how it came close to destruction (for example, saying instead "While he [i.e. Khosrau II] secured the route towards Constantinople, he simultaneously allied with the Avars and Slavs, who overran the Balkans.") These are just suggestions. I know that some will be concerned about expanding the introduction, but if this paragraph is a source of contention, then simple edits like this may go a long way to providing a solution everyone will be happy with.-- Pericles of Athens  Talk 20:12, 31 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The original term used was not "inertia" but "stability". I am not sure who changed it, but I assume that this was a response to Septentrionalis's complaints about the use of "stability". I preferred "stability", but have no particular problem with "inertia". Could you explain further your objections to the word?
 * I would oppose the suggested response of replacing the current concise summation of the significance of certain events (in the context of the general point about territorial stability) with a full circumstantial narration of them. This would amount to duplicating hefty chunks of the main text in what is supposed to be an introduction. As I have mentioned previously, this discussion of specific events was only included in what had hitherto been a general overview at the instigation of Septentrionalis. It was somewhat against my better judgment, since I felt that such material was out of place in the introduction and led to unnecessary obfuscation of the very general points being made. I also anticipated that the necessary simplification involved in such a summary treatment of particular events might lead to further problems (although I never expected this extraordinary storm in a teacup). However, I chose to compromise with Septentrionalis on this point, rather than insisting on keeping the introduction to generalities and leaving the specifics for the main text. Given the headache that has ensued, it seems now that this was a mistake.
 * I would be very happy to short-circuit the dispute by removing the discussion of specific events and leaving only the general observations about the long-term stability of the territorial position, but I imagine that this would only make Septentrionalis even more unhappy. Other editors may also have objections to such a course of action. Zburh (talk) 02:27, 1 August 2008 (UTC)


 * "Territorial inertia" was put by you Zburh; on July 10 as far as I can remember. Pericles, if we put in the into so many details about this last war, what are we going to do with all the others?! Showing "how it came close to destruction" is not something belonging to the lead. Should we also expand about Shapur? Add Trajan as Sept has proposed? And then what? The intro is already getting huge. Are we going to make it colossal (with epic dimensions like the topic!)! I'd support a proposal like the one Zbuhr articulated: Let's "shrink" the second and the third paragraphs of the lead, let's merge them, make them more concise, keep the lead to generalities and leave the specifics for the main text. The "largely stable" thing will remain, and all the particular events will go to the main article. Now, I am also not sure at all that Sept will agree with "the long-term stability thing", and he'll probably ask for the exceptions to be mentioned, but unfortunately this will lead us again to a "vicious circle". Can we avoid this "vicious circle"? Please?! After having put all this effort to bring this article to FA status, it really makes me terribly unhappy to stupidly quarrel here for a damn-half paragraph!
 * Now, I am sorry, but for the next couple of days I'll enjoy the see here (now if you think that this is just a mountain, you're so wrong!). See you again on Monday. Maybe on my absence, it will be easier for Zburh and Sept to conclude an agreement! Cheers!--Yannismarou (talk) 11:35, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I would be perfectly happy with a general statement that there are exceptions. Something on the order of Both sides did make conquests beyond the line of stalemate, but (with the exception of Septimius) the balance was always restored, would be fine. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 13:26, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Would someone care to do a draft in, say, the next 24 hours? Let's have something to work with. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:09, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

This was the second paragraph of the lead before July 10:
 * "Although warfare lasted for seven centuries between the Romans and the Iranians, neither side was ever able to dominate the other. A game of "tug of war" basically ensued with towns, fortifications, and provinces being continuously sacked, captured, destroyed, and changing sides frequently. Neither side had the logistical strength or manpower to maintain such lengthy campaigns so far from their borders, and thus neither could advance too far without risking stretching their frontiers too thin."

I did not find (and I did not search to be honest) how the "remarkably stable" stuff was added. Now, if this paragraph could be used as the basis for an agreed text, then it could replace the current second and third paragraphs (current lead has four paragraphs) as follows (taking into consideration Sept's comment above as follows:
 * If we want the "largely stable"
 * "Although warfare between the Romans and the Iranians lasted for seven centuries, the frontier remained largely stable. A game of "tug of war" basically ensued with towns, fortifications, and provinces being continuously sacked, captured, destroyed, and changing sides frequently. Neither side had the logistical strength or manpower to maintain such lengthy campaigns so far from their borders, and thus neither could advance too far without risking stretching their frontiers too thin. Occupation of enemy territory was usually local or brief and almost always reversed by force or negotiation. The only lasting conquest by force was Septimius Severus' annexation of northern Mesopotamia in 195–198 AD."


 * The same version closer to Sept's "general statement above":
 * ""Although warfare between the Romans and the Iranians lasted for seven centuries, the frontier remained largely stable. A game of "tug of war" basically ensued with towns, fortifications, and provinces being continuously sacked, captured, destroyed, and changing sides frequently. Neither side had the logistical strength or manpower to maintain such lengthy campaigns so far from their borders, and thus neither could advance too far without risking stretching their frontiers too thin. Both sides did make conquests beyond the line of stalemate, but the balance was almost always restored by force or negotiation. The only lasting conquest by force was Septimius Severus' annexation of northern Mesopotamia in 195–198 AD."


 * If we do not want the "largely stable" and prefer the initial version
 * "Although warfare lasted for seven centuries between the Romans and the Iranians, neither side was ever able to dominate the other. A game of "tug of war" basically ensued with towns, fortifications, and provinces being continuously sacked, captured, destroyed, and changing sides frequently. Neither side had the logistical strength or manpower to maintain such lengthy campaigns so far from their borders, and thus neither could advance too far without risking stretching their frontiers too thin. Occupation of enemy territory was usually local or brief and almost always reversed by force or negotiation. The only lasting conquest by force was Septimius Severus' annexation of northern Mesopotamia in 195–198 AD."


 * The same version closer to Sept's general statement
 * "Although warfare lasted for seven centuries between the Romans and the Iranians, neither side was ever able to dominate the other. A game of "tug of war" basically ensued with towns, fortifications, and provinces being continuously sacked, captured, destroyed, and changing sides frequently. Neither side had the logistical strength or manpower to maintain such lengthy campaigns so far from their borders, and thus neither could advance too far without risking stretching their frontiers too thin. Both sides did make conquests beyond the line of stalemate, but the balance was almost always restored by force or negotiation. The only lasting conquest by force was Septimius Severus' annexation of northern Mesopotamia in 195–198 AD."

I expect your comments and remarks on the above four versions. If there are more ideas, please articulate them. After all, you are native English speakers and better than me in drafting drafts!--Yannismarou (talk) 17:36, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I like the second version. I'm not sure what by force or negotiation is doing there; all the examples I can think of: Trajan, Shapur, Khusrou, were ended by the application of force. (If it is intended to stand in for the present sentence Rather, each was the product of negotiations in which a ruler's negotiating position was severely weakened by his personal circumstances, it doesn't quite cover the same ground.) I don't like scare quotes; I therefore propose.
 * Although warfare between the Romans and the Iranians lasted for seven centuries, the frontier remained largely stable. A game of tug of war ensued: towns, fortifications, and provinces were  continuously sacked, captured, destroyed, and changing sides frequently. Neither side had the logistical strength or manpower to maintain such lengthy campaigns so far from their borders, and thus neither could advance too far without risking stretching their frontiers too thin; sometimes one ruler could extract concessions from the other because he had put himself at risk''.  Both sides did make conquests beyond the line of stalemate, but the balance was almost always restored in time. The only lasting conquest by force was Septimius Severus' annexation of northern Mesopotamia in 195–198 AD."
 * but I don't insist on the added clause, which is intended to deal with the concessions made by Narseh and Jovian. Do they really differ from the rest of the back and forth? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:03, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Personally, if this clause is to be added, I would prefer it like that (I think the prose flows better): "... and thus neither could advance too far without risking stretching their frontiers too thin. Both sides did make conquests beyond the line of stalemate, and sometimes one ruler could extract concessions from the other because he had put himself at risk, but the balance was almost always restored in time. The only lasting conquest by force was Septimius Severus' annexation of northern Mesopotamia in 195–198 AD."

In general, I'm ok, this clause is added or not; this clause is placed where I propose or not. But before editing, my opinion is to wait a bit more for further comments from Zburh, Pericles (if he is still watching us!) or anybody else.--Yannismarou (talk) 18:17, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I see what you mean. I would rather strike the added sentence, then; the whole distinction between conquest by overrunning provinces and conquest by cornering the Emperor is somewhat murky to begin with. (And were Jovian's cessions retaken, as your latest version would suggest?) Let's see if any more comments appear. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:09, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Silence! Our content dispute did not attract much interest, did it?! Pity! I'll edit the above draft paragraph then, acceptable by both me and Sept (Zburh has not yet expressed himself, but this version is based on a previous work of his, and does not look to include anything inaccurate IMO) and let's see if there are going to be any reactions.--Yannismarou (talk) 19:07, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I was going to edit the last revision but I preferred to discuss it before starting editing that may cause some tensions here. Septimius Severus' annexation of northern Mesopotamia is still in the introduction but you removed Shapur and Khosrow II's campaigns that were the two climaxes of the conflict. Fair enough that those campagnes or at least Khosrow II's one stay in the introduction section. Because they brought the Roman Empire close to destruction and they very critical moments during this long comflicts--Larno Man (talk) 20:14, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * As Zburh has mentioned some time ago, none of Shapur or Khosrau was mentioned some time ago, and there was no problem with that. Right now, the only incident mentioned is Septimus' conquest because it was the only one bringing some permanent territorial gains. Now, I'm afraid that this vicious circle problem I mentioned before is starting to appear here. Guys, obviously nobody can be completely satisfied! I proposed and edited this version, because after some time it is a version that includes no historical inaccuracies, at least IMO.--Yannismarou (talk) 20:22, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * And you say Khosrau and Shapur? And Sept will come again and say why not Trajan: He brought the Parthians close to destruction. And here they are all the various events we wanted to avoid!--Yannismarou (talk) 20:25, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Tarjan conquered Mesopotamia and didn't penetrate into Parthian mainland, i.e. Iran Plateau and it is not comparable with Khosrow's campaign that occupied most of Roman territory and even the Shapur's one when he captured the Roman emperor. lol, from your last comment I got this impression that all your effort is only to satisfy Sept. and others are not important. I believe Sept. is only one user out of tens of users who have been added this page to their watchlist.--Larno Man (talk) 21:03, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Satisfy Sept?! Didn't you see Pericles' comment above, who raised his own concerns about the lead you love so much. Therefore, check better a bit your mathematics. By the way, you come and tell me that my only purpose is to satisfy Sept! At least I've worked the hell to bring this article to FA status! What is your contribution exactly which gives you the right to make such comments? Let me remember ... Oh, yea, edit-warring in the lead!--Yannismarou (talk) 07:36, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * And why exactly Shapur's threat for the Romans was more important than Trajan's for the Parthians? Didn't Trajan capture the Parthian capital or I am mistaken? These are subjective judgments, and the lead I proposed (and Sept indeed agreed) avoids that. It focuses again on mere facts: permanent territorial gains, and this happened only by Septimus, which is a fact! Even Khosrau's gains were reversed.--Yannismarou (talk) 08:11, 6 August 2008 (UTC)


 * First of all I kindly request you to stop your sarcastic speech! I didn't have any problem with the old lead until Sept came and complained that it reelects the Iranian nationalistic view and put dispute tag. At that time you asked me not to continue this discussion []. You asked me to stay out of this discussion and now you say why you you were absent!
 * Roman-Persian war had also climaxes other than Torjan. I personally think that no specific names should be mentioned on the lead. However, if you want to mention Torjan. There are important people and moments that should be mentioned, i.e when it started, how it started, etc. Yes, it is subjective what is more important. However, if you mention Torjan you should mention at least Khosrow as well. You may not reach compromise if you only care about one side concerns. I may say OK. But for sure, every day one new guy comes and resume the story --Larno Man (talk) 16:17, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Who's Torjan?--Yannismarou (talk) 16:25, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry I meant Severus.--Larno Man (talk) 16:34, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * There are many subjective things in our world. Permanent territorial changes is not one of them. Check also the infobox.--Yannismarou (talk) 16:26, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * And I wasn't sarcastic before. And I do not care about sides! What sides are we talking about for events which happened more than 1,500 years ago! Are we serious here?!--Yannismarou (talk) 16:29, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * And please, do not alter my words. I did not tell you to stay out of this discussion. I asked you to stop this revert-warring thing with Sept. That's all! When did I tell you not to participate in the discussion?! How could I ask something like that?!--Yannismarou (talk) 16:31, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Anyway ... Personally I am waiting to see what is Zburh's opinion on this paragraph. By the way, Larno Man, with your previous revert you even deleted Zburh's paragraphing and removal of "final", which was also intended to satisfy some of Sept's concern. In order to clarify some things: I worked a lot for this article, in order to bring it to FA status. I was not alone in this course, but I did work a lot! Therefore, the last thing I want is edit-wars jeopardizing its top-class status. This is my only concern, and not to satisfy any "side". And I do feel sorry for those discerning "sides" here! This is no war! I highly respect both Sept and Zburh, and I'll keep saying that, even if I may frequently disagree with both of them (a bit more frequently with Sept!). And we may have exchanged bitter words, but this does not undermine my respect. Personally, I'm closer to the previous detailed version by Zburh. But both Sept and Pericles raised concerns, and I have to take that into consideration. Zburh proposed not to mention particular events, and bring back the older shorter version. Sept responded, ok, I agree, bring back the previous shorter version which had no particular events, but Septimus' conquest is an important exception because it led to permanent territorial changes (the only one), and therefore, it should be mentioned. That is what I did! I may be wrong, but is there any better proposal?--Yannismarou (talk) 16:43, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't mean Iranian and Romans. It is funny to take one side for a historical event. I mean you only satisfy PMAnderson and revert in favor of her. I am sure now she is more than happy.--Larno Man (talk) 16:40, 6 August 2008 (UTC)


 * LarnoMan, look at what initially he/she proposed, and which is the current version, and then rethink your opinion. You have the right to disagree with my last proposal, but it is far than close to what first Sept proposed! And why do you insist on disregarding Pericles' comments? He is also here, and he has also criticized the version you defend (and I admitted I do not dislike either).--Yannismarou (talk) 16:46, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I am at work and can't continue this discussion right now. I will come back this evening. However, it would be after mid-night in Greece. Damn this time difference! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Larno Man (talk • contribs) 17:01, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I do not understand this determination.


 * Please start by making the case for mentioning Khosrau in the lead, while not mentioning Shapur or Trajan or Galerius or Julian. Why is this not WP:UNDUE? Do you contend that he broke the strategic stalemate? (If so, is this consensus among the authorities? If not, and he merely seemed to, why is this worth mentioning?)


 * Why restore the wording which Pericles and I have both criticized? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:13, 6 August 2008 (UTC)


 * If mentioning Khosrau II's crucial campaign in the Roman east in the lead is considered "undo weight", then mentioning Septimius Severus' annexation of northern Mesopotamia is undo weight as well. So for now, I have removed that line as well. No double standards please, either no mentions of specific military campaigns and their effects/results on the war, or we should mention Khosrau's campaign as well. --CreazySuit (talk) 09:43, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Collection of leads!
In order to see what is going on here exactly, let's see all the proposed or implemented leads (even if they remained for seconds!):
 * The pro June 2008 version:
 * "Although warfare lasted for seven centuries between the Romans and the Iranians, neither side was ever able to dominate the other. A game of "tug of war" basically ensued with towns, fortifications, and provinces being continuously sacked, captured, destroyed, and changing sides frequently. Neither side had the logistical strength or manpower to maintain such lengthy campaigns so far from their borders, and thus neither could advance too far without risking stretching their frontiers too thin."


 * The after June 2008 version when the article went through FAC:
 * "Although warfare between the Romans and the Iranians lasted for seven centuries, the frontier remained largely stable. Intense fortification of the Mesopotamian frontier zone at the center, the barrier of the Syrian desert in the south, and the mountainous terrain of the Transcaucasus in the north made it hard for either side to gain territory without incapacitating its opponent's armies. Well-matched in their organisational and military capacities, the empires reached stalemate. Occupation of enemy territory was usually local or brief and almost always reversed by force or negotiation. Durable cessions of territory in the border zone were made in Mesopotamia in 299 and 363 AD and in the Transcaucasus in 591 AD, but these were not the result of land being seized by force. Rather, each was the product of negotiations in which a ruler's negotiating position was severely weakened by his personal circumstances. The only lasting conquest by force was Septimius Severus' annexation of northern Mesopotamia in 195–198 AD. The last of these wars seemed to end the territorial inertia when Khosrau II's Sassanid forces occupied huge swathes of Roman territory for many years and brought the Roman Empire close to destruction. However, a counter-offensive led by Heraclius enabled the Romans to regain their lost territory in a final peace settlement."


 * What Sept proposed opening this RfC:
 * "Although warfare between the Romans and the Iranians lasted for seven centuries, the frontier remained largely stable. Intense fortification of the Mesopotamian frontier zone at the center, the barrier of the Syrian desert in the south, and the mountainous terrain of the Transcaucasus in the north made it hard for either side to gain territory without incapacitating its opponent's armies. Well-matched in their organisational and military capacities, the empires reached stalemate. Occupation of enemy territory was usually local or brief and almost always reversed by force or negotiation. Durable cessions of territory in the border zone were made in Mesopotamia in 299 and 363 AD and in the Transcaucasus in 591 AD, but these were not the result of land being seized by force. Rather, each was the product of negotiations in which a ruler's negotiating position was severely weakened by his personal circumstances. The Persians twice conquered Roman eastern territories, under Shapur I and Khosrau II. The first time, the Romans took a couple decades to regain their position from the Persians and the Arabs; in the second case Khosrau himself held the Roman East for a couple of decades, but the Persians were finally driven out in a counter-offensive led by Heraclius. The Romans succeeded in establishing a position behind the Persian lines on a number of occasions—Trajan held all of Mesopotamia for some years, but Hadrian decided it was untenable—but Septimius Severus' conquest of northern Mesopotamia by force in 195–198 AD was the only permanent conquest for either side."


 * The version Zburh put in response to these concerns:
 * "Although warfare between the Romans and the Iranians lasted for seven centuries, the frontier remained largely stable. Intense fortification of the Mesopotamian frontier zone at the center, the barrier of the Syrian desert in the south, and the mountainous terrain of the Transcaucasus in the north made it hard for either side to gain territory without incapacitating its opponent's armies. Well-matched in their organisational and military capacities, the empires reached stalemate. Occupation of enemy territory was usually local or brief and almost always reversed by force or negotiation. Durable cessions of territory in the border zone were made in Mesopotamia in 299 and 363 AD and in the Transcaucasus in 591 AD, but these were not the result of land being seized by force. Rather, each was the product of negotiations in which a ruler's negotiating position was severely weakened by his personal circumstances. The only lasting conquest by force was Septimius Severus' annexation of northern Mesopotamia in 195–198 AD.


 * The last of these wars seemed to end the territorial inertia when Khosrau II's Sassanid forces occupied huge swathes of Roman territory for many years and brought the Roman Empire close to destruction. However, a counter-offensive led by Heraclius enabled the Romans to regain their lost territory in the peace settlement."


 * The same version incorporating (?) Pericles' suggestions:
 * "Although warfare between the Romans and the Iranians lasted for seven centuries, the frontier remained largely stable. Intense fortification of the Mesopotamian frontier zone at the center, the barrier of the Syrian desert in the south, and the mountainous terrain of the Transcaucasus in the north made it hard for either side to gain territory without incapacitating its opponent's armies. Well-matched in their organizational and military capacities, the empires reached stalemate. Occupation of enemy territory was usually local or brief and almost always reversed by force or negotiation. Durable cessions of territory in the border zone were made in Mesopotamia in 299 and 363 AD and in the Transcaucasus in 591 AD, but these were not the result of land being seized by force. Rather, each was the product of negotiations in which a ruler's negotiating position was severely weakened by his personal circumstances. The only lasting conquest by force was Septimius Severus' annexation of northern Mesopotamia in 195–198 AD. During the last Roman-Persian war Khosrau II's Sassanid forces occupied Roman territories as far west as Egypt and Anatolia for many years. Khosrau secured the route towards Constantinople, and simultaneously allied with the Avars and Slavs, who overran the Balkans. However, a counter-offensive led by Heraclius enabled the Romans to regain their lost territory in the peace settlement."
 * If we also incorporate Sept's proposal to mention Trajan as well the last part of the paragraph becomes like that:
 * " ... Rather, each was the product of negotiations in which a ruler's negotiating position was severely weakened by his personal circumstances. The Romans succeeded in establishing a position behind the Persian lines on a number of occasions—Trajan held all of Mesopotamia for some years, but Hadrian decided it was untenable—but the only lasting conquest by force was Septimius Severus' annexation of northern Mesopotamia in 195–198 AD. During the last Roman-Persian war Khosrau II's Sassanid forces occupied Roman territories as far west as Egypt and Anatolia for many years. Khosrau secured the route towards Constantinople, and simultaneously allied with the Avars and Slavs, who overran the Balkans. However, a counter-offensive led by Heraclius enabled the Romans to regain their lost territory in the peace settlement."


 * And my last proposal, Sept accepted:
 * "Although warfare between the Romans and the Iranians lasted for seven centuries, the frontier remained largely stable. A game of tug of war ensued: towns, fortifications, and provinces were continuously sacked, captured, destroyed, and changing sides frequently. Neither side had the logistical strength or manpower to maintain such lengthy campaigns so far from their borders, and thus neither could advance too far without risking stretching their frontiers too thin. Both sides did make conquests beyond the line of stalemate, but the balance was almost always restored in time. The only lasting conquest by force was Septimius Severus' annexation of northern Mesopotamia in 195–198 AD."


 * Oh, and Larno Man's version:
 * "Although warfare between the Romans and the Iranians lasted for seven centuries, the frontier remained largely stable. A game of tug of war ensued: towns, fortifications, and provinces were continuously sacked, captured, destroyed, and changing sides frequently. Neither side had the logistical strength or manpower to maintain such lengthy campaigns so far from their borders, and thus neither could advance too far without risking stretching their frontiers too thin. Both sides did make conquests beyond the line of stalemate, but the balance was almost always restored in time. The only lasting conquest by force was Septimius Severus' annexation of northern Mesopotamia in 195–198 AD. The last of these wars seemed to end the territorial inertia when Khosrau II's Sassanid forces conquered huge swathes of Roman territory for many years and brought the Roman Empire close to destruction. However, a counter-offensive led by Heraclius enabled the Romans to regain their lost territory in the peace settlement."

I think everybody here is very creative, but are we going to agree on any of the proposals?!--Yannismarou (talk) 17:35, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok, Sorry for delay! I personally prefer no particular event and person in the lead! From different prespectives different events are more important! If you insist to keep Septimius, I am sure that every day a new user comes and start over this story. Some people love to add Tarjan, Philip the Arab, others Khosrow, Surena or Shapur or whatever. let make it stable by remove all specific names and events.--Larno Man (talk) 16:16, 7 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I have been keeping my distance from this debate lately, but I am inclined to agree with Larno Man's argument here. Including Septimius Severus as an exception leaves the door open to just the kind of trouble that my original agreement to include particular exceptions produced. All specific cases should really be kept out of that paragraph. Zburh (talk) 17:11, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I also strongly oppose the return of much of the very poor May 2008 text. The line about a "game of tug of war" is far too colloquial. The assertion that territories "continually" changed hands is a serious misrepresentation of the facts. The line about neither side being able to campaign far due to logistical incapacity is unsubstantiated original research, ungrammatical, and thoroughly inconsistent with the facts - these empires were able to make very extensive conquests elsewhere, and were able on occasion to mount long-range campaigns against each other. What they were almost invariably unable to do was to turn their campaigning into lasting conquests. Whatever else is decided, all of that ought to go. Zburh (talk) 17:11, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * "I would be very happy to short-circuit the dispute by removing the discussion of specific events and leaving only the general observations about the long-term stability of the territorial position". What kind of second paragraph in the lead would fulfill these criteria set above by yourself? Anything to propose?--Yannismarou (talk) 12:31, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I also agree that the line about neither side being able to campaign far due to logistical incapacity is not completely correct and that was not the reason of the Roman-Persian tug war. I believe, that was mostly due to this fact that both sides of the war were strong and none has supremacy over the other one. These empires were able to make very extensive conquests elsewhere, not true to talk about their logistical incapacity--Larno Man (talk) 00:56, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Personally, I'm out of this discussion. Bored (I do expect however Zburh's proposal-answer to my question above).--Yannismarou (talk) 12:07, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

How simply saying that the northern part of the boundary shifted from the Euphrates to the Tigris at the end of the second century AD? No names, no pack drill. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:22, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Lapse of two days, without comment, followed by insertion

I think it is very simplistic. The boundary shifted toward west again at the time of Sassanids. How about Caucasus the boundary also shifted several times--Larno Man (talk) 20:12, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It's not simplistic, it's simple. One reason for this is that this is an lead, which should summarize; the other is all my efforts to tell a more complex story have been reverted. I am restoring, and will include that there were shifts in the Caucasus; others are welcome to add other complications as needed, as indeed they could have added the Caucasus. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:21, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Why you want to start this story again? For many days nobody touched the lead and it seems that except you the current lead doesn't bother others. What you wrote is not completely accurate and is very simplistic. The boundary in the Sasanids period shifted westward again in Mesopotamia and Caucasus. If you insist to mention specific events, again, you open the doors for others to add Sasanids' shift in boundaries as well--Larno Man (talk) 17:30, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * A very slight shift, if any, in Mesopotamia before 591; whereas the fact that the fourth through sixth century boundary reached the valley of the  Tigris is essential in understanding the strategies in the rest of the article; there's a vast difference between a north-south frontier and an east-west frontier. There are certainly discreditable reasons for Iranian editors to want to suppress this; what's a creditable one? (I would be willing to adapt to one such, as my past edits should have shown.)   Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:46, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

We decided to not mention specific events and I don't agree that frontier was Tigris for a long time. In this case, how about in the Sasanid period? The frontier in North pushed to Black Sea at the time of Sasanids and in South pushed back toward west of Euphrates. --Larno Man (talk) 18:03, 19 August 2008 (UTC) Sasanids is fine. Check Merriam-Webster--Larno Man (talk) 18:20, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I have gone out of my way not to mention any specific event; merely that the map of the fourth to sixth century differed from the first or second.
 * The boundary reached, indeed crossed, the Tigris in Justinian's time, snd the Iberian war ended in status quo ante. When exactly did it reach the Black Sea? Citing Khusrau's adventure without explanation of its brevity would be like claiming (as I would not) that the boundary reached the Red Sea because of Trajan. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:11, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Sassanian, please. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:13, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It is not impossible, which is all a dictionary can really be expected to prove, since English dictionaries do not prescribe. MW does not prefer it, nor does the OED; if they did, it would be the main listing. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:43, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Again Justinian's campaign is a specific event and it was not a lasting event. What you wrote on the lead is not applied to the Sasanids period. Check this maps Apparently, Tigris is not the frontier--Larno Man (talk) 18:44, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Every single one of those shows the frontier on or crossing the Tigris, at pretty much the same place, north of Nisibis. What, in Heaven's name, is your point? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:53, 19 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I guess you are not able to locate Tigris and Euphrates on the maps. Tigris is the one in East of Mesopotamia and Euphrates is in the west of Mesopotamia. Apparently, Euphrates is frontier in the Sasanids period.--Larno Man (talk) 19:11, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * You're certainly guessing at something. This map is large scale and clear; beginning at Palmyra and going east, the border crosses the Euphrates at Circesium; it then proceeds past Nisibis to the Tigris, follows the Tigris upstream for a bit, and crosses it. It intersects one of the several headwaters of the Euphrates north of there; but that has nothing to do with Mesopotamia. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:19, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * As another small hint, it shows Amida well inside Roman territory. Amida is on the Tigris, as indeed Diyarbakır still is. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:24, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Dude! Look at the map again and listen to the point that I raised. The north western frontiers were usually headwaters of Tigris and Euphrates in Anatolia and North Mesopotamia and the western frontiers were west of Euphrates. Look at the map where the border line crosses Euphrates at Circesium. This is the start point of the western frontiers. So, what you wrote on the lead is not accurate and not applied to the Sasanids-Byzantin frontiers--Larno Man (talk) 20:04, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The text of the article says nothing about Iraq. But I have tweaked, since this map is not Galerius' frontier. I hope this will be all. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:19, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

We decided not to mention specific events. If you insist to add your favorite events you give green light to others to add theirs as well. --Larno Man (talk) 20:29, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I repeat: we don't mention any specific events.
 * What "changes at the time of Sasanids [sic]" did you have in mind?
 * If nothing better can be worked out, I am perfectly willing to tag nationalist dreck and walk away. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:36, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I am sure, there are others here who are as clever as you are and not all of them are semi-literate as you think []. They can dress up other events nameless and add them to lead as you did. You always judge others determining who is nationalist who is not. Could you please tell me the category which you fall into?--Larno Man (talk) 20:53, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Moi? I'm a classicist. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:04, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

lol

I await - and demonstrably respond to constructive suggestions. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:08, 19 August 2008 (UTC) lol

'''I am reluctant to revert you and add tension at the moment. I wait until Yannismarou and Zburh comeback.''' However, I do believe that this is undue weight. I don't understand why you love to overemphasis on a event. You are always opening the doors for other disputes. hahaha, I am waiting that somebody comes and adds a nameless paragraph on campaigns that brought the other side to destruction. You know what I mean. Those are very important to some people as well and we have many other clever guys here.Larno Man (talk)


 * "Both sides did make conquests beyond the border, but the balance was almost always restored in time: The line of stalemate did shift: from the northern Euphrates, in the second century AD, to a line going east, or later northeast, across Mesopotamia to the northern Tigris; there were also several substantial shifts further north, in Armenia and the Caucasus."

Sept, you are a native English speaker, and as you say a classicist. I am thus stunned by the above poor writing. If I did not know you, I would say that you intentionally write such a bad prose, so that the article loses its star for failing the prose criterion! This is bad English! Bad English! The phrase should go only for this reason! Not to speak about the inaccuracies concerning the Tigris border, and the meddling of a series of border changes in way that does not help at all the reader.--Yannismarou (talk) 11:16, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It is a much-tweaked sentence, and I don't glory in it; but it is both grammatical and correct. It was much simpler before Larno Man began yanking my elbow. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:34, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

lol I was going to ask you to fix my grammar mistakes because you are classiest and native English speaker. But, it seems that both need help --Larno (talk) 21:11, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Image of Galerius
Urselius (talk) 15:26, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I can put it next to Valerian's image (but this will sandwich the text) or replace Ctesiphon's image, but why should we balance the existing image?! The only reasonable reason for including it is as a more special and related picture. I could also replace Holbein's painting, but I like it!--Yannismarou (talk) 15:42, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * But I do agree that two images about Shapur's capturing of Valerian is an overdose! So, one should maybe go.--Yannismarou (talk) 15:54, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Roman-Persian Wars or Roman Iranian Wars
I know many people work a lot to bring the status of the article to FA. I draw your attention to an ongoing event that may affect this article. Actually, there is not completely correct to call these wars Roman-Persian Wars. Persians were only one of the Iranian tribes, but sometimes the term Persian is used exchangeably with Iranian. This usage is not completely correct. For example Parthians were Iranian but not Persian and even at the time of Sasanids they called their country Iranshahr (~Land of Iran). Therefore, the more correct title might be Roman-Iranian War. This comfusion can be found on many articles in WP. However some people are going to fix the misusage of these terms (Persian,Iranians) []. This changes will affect this article as well. I am not surprized if in near future some people come and request to move this article.--Larno Man (talk) 18:17, 7 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Such thoughts have also gone through my mind as well for some time now. But I think the current term is fine, and it is established in scholarship. Roman-Iranian Wars on the other hand ... Less than 100 results in google and less than 30 in googlebook. I also do not see how the reader could be confused: if he wants the overview of the 700 years of wars, he comes here (and a redirect of Roman-Iranian Wars would eliminate any chance of confusion for him), if he wants more details for Roman-Parthian Wars he could go to the relevant article per WP:SS, and if he wants more details for Roman-Sassanid Wars, there is also an article about that.
 * Terminology problems are inevitable. Look at the problem with Roman vs Byzantine. Especially after Justinian (and during his reign as well) scholarship mostly uses the term Byzantine. But, I cannot switch terms in the middle of the article! It would be awful for any reader!--Yannismarou (talk) 07:51, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * In any case, any request for move will be discussed with the procedures WP provides for, and if there is a consensus for the article's name (which I find a bit difficult), this is no problem for me.--Yannismarou (talk) 07:53, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * If we're going to change, it would be better to split between Roman-Parthian and Roman-Sassanian, with this as a dab page. Byzantine–Sassanid Wars is half of this, and misnamed. Aurelian is not Byzantine, and the consensus that Heraclius is usefully so described is diminishing. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:24, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Heraclius and his war strategy
I think that the present text leaves out an important facet concerning Heraclius and his strategy. At present his movements and attacks on the Persians seem almost random. He tried the conventional approach in re-conquering the territories taken by the Persians and this failed. He then came up with a number of quite radical strategic ideas. Having seen that, with Constantinople essentially immune from attack, the Empire would not fall due to loss of territory. He mobilised cash from the Church and with this set about creating an effective army and buying allies. With these forces he, apart from trying to stabilise his control of Asia Minor, then ignored the fact that large areas of the Empire were occupied by the Persians and deliberately took the war to his enemy. Heraclius had recognised that to win he had to destroy Persian armies in the field, not waste his own in protracted fruitless sieges, and thus break the Persian will to continue fighting. In this he had made an intellectual leap of strategic thinking that would, arguably, not be equalled until Napoleon's military campaigns.

see, for example: Heraclius, Emperor of Byzantium By Walter Emil Kaegi p. 125

Urselius (talk) 12:05, 8 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with you, but take into consideration that this article tries to summarize 700 years of wars. It is not possible to offer analysis for all the battles and expeditions. This does not mean that I underestimate Heraclius' strategic movement. But maybe such an analysis would fit better in Heraclius own article or per WP:SS in Byzantine-Sassanid Wars article. Unfortunately, there is no article in Wikipedia treating the last Roman-Persian War as a whole.--Yannismarou (talk) 15:02, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

City of Ctesiphon
Ctesiphon itself was sacked/captured by the Roman and by Eastern Roman army 5 times which was a capital city. This article fails to mention the sacking or capture of this city by Septimius Severus. It does say.. "Emperor Septimius Severus led to Rome's acquisition of northern Mesopotamia as far as the areas around Nisibis and Singara". The article also fails to mention the capture of Ctesiphon by Galerius.

An article this great should mention that those two captured this Capital. Also, this article failed to mention Trajan capturing the great city of Susa. I added this in. "In 195–197, a Roman offensive under the Emperor Septimius Severus led to Rome's acquisition of northern Mesopotamia as far as the areas around Nisibis,Singara and the sacking of the Parthian capital Ctesiphon." The other edit was for Galerius. "Galerius moved down the Tigris, taking the Parthian capital Ctesiphon, and gazing onwards to the ruins of Babylon before returning to Roman territory via the Euphrates."

As for Trajan I do kind of want to make some changes. I feel what was said was just too short. Maybe add some more info would be nice? Trajan invaded Parthia, marching first on Armenia. In 114 Parthamasiris surrendered and was killed. Trajan annexed Armenia to the Roman empire. Then he turned south into Parthia itself, taking the cities of Babylon, Seleucia and finally the capital of Ctesiphon in 116. He deposed Osroes I and put his own puppet ruler Parthamaspates on the throne. In Mesopotamia Osroes' brother Mithridates IV and his son Sanatruces II took the diadem and fought against the Romans, but Trajan marched southward to the Persian Gulf, defeated them, and declared Mesopotamia a new province of the empire. Later in 116, he crossed the Khuzestan mountains into Persia and captured the great city of Susa. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Titus001 (talk • contribs) 00:14, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

http://www.noblemind.com/timeline/Ctesiphon http://www.novaroma.org/forum/mainlist/2003/2003-03-29.html http://www.answers.com/topic/septimius-severus

http://www.noblemind.com/timeline/Galerius [ --Titus001 (talk) 22:53, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The sites you cite are not credible (WP:VERIFIABILITY, WP:RELIABLE SOURCES). Please, provide scolarly works. As far as the details you propose to be added, it is better to work them in the Roman-Parthian Wars article per WP:SS.--Yannismarou (talk) 14:27, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

It is common knowledge that Emperor Septimius Severus and Galerius captured Ctesiphon. I will add more sources shortly. If the Persians sacked Rome or Constantinople it would of been added. You do not think when a capital is captured that it should not be mentioned? --Titus001 (talk) 14:34, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * If it is so common, then provide credible and reliable sources (preferably printed ones) as you edit. Otherwise, I promise that I'll revert any uncited edits.
 * What I say is that this article summarizes per WP:SS the main articles: Roman-Parthian Wars and Byzantine-Sassanid Wars. Details belong there.--Yannismarou (talk) 14:41, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Try also not to be repetitive: you edit in every second sentence that Ctesiphon is the Parthian capital! Once is enough!--Yannismarou (talk) 14:42, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * And read before you edit. The article states about Galerius: "The resulting peace settlement gave the Romans control of the area between the Tigris and the Greater Zab." So, your re-editing of the already mentioned border shift was obvious redundant.--Yannismarou (talk) 14:46, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

The 3-volume Smith's Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology ( edition is 1890). The following is taken from the article "Severus, L. Septimius":

"...Severus, still thirsting for military renown, resolved to return to Asia, and again assail the Parthians, who, taking advantage of the civil strife in the West, had spread over Mesopotamia. Accordingly he set forth accompanied by his sons Caracalla and Geta, crossed the Euphrates early in the year A.D. 198, and commenced a series of operations which were attended with the most brilliant results. Seleucia and Babylon were evacuated by the enemy; and Ctesiphon, at that time their royal city, was taken and plundered after a short siege."

Another source.http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Cassius_Dio/76*.html#75-10.3

"As the Parthians did not await his arrival but retired homeward (their leader was Vologaesus, whose brother was accompanying Severus), he constructed boats on the Euphrates and proceeded forward partly by sailing and partly by marching along the river. The boats thus built were exceedingly swift and speedy and well constructed, for the forest along the Euphrates and that region in general afforded him an abundant supply of timber. Thus he soon had seized Seleucia and Babylon, both of which had been abandoned. Later, upon capturing Ctesiphon, he permitted the soldiers to plunder the entire city, and he slew a vast number of people, besides taking as many as a hundred thousand captives. He did not, however, pursue Vologaesus, nor even occupy Ctesiphone, but, just as if the sole purpose of his campaign had been to plunder this place, he was off again, owing partly to lack of acquaintance with the country and partly to the dearth of provisions. He returned by a different route, because the wood and fodder found on the outward march had been exhausted. Some of the soldiers made the return journey by land up the Tigris, and some in boats."

I will find more sources on Galerius. When I find more sources I will make the appropriate edits. It should be mentioned when a capital is taken. --Titus001 (talk) 20:04, 20 September 2008 (UTC)