This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome, a group of contributors interested in Wikipedia's articles on classics. If you would like to join the WikiProject or learn how to contribute, please see our project page. If you need assistance from a classicist, please see our talk page.Classical Greece and RomeWikipedia:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeTemplate:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeClassical Greece and Rome articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Iran, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles related to Iran on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project where you can contribute to the discussions and help with our open tasks.IranWikipedia:WikiProject IranTemplate:WikiProject IranIran articles
Latest comment: 14 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
The account given here does not accord with what I found when I researched Marcus Marius (quaestor). Chalcedon seems to have been rather a draw, and was a land battle, with the naval engagement part of the siege of Cyzicus to follow. Although Mithradates escaped, he suffered heavy losses, and neither of these engagements was a 'decisive' battle, in the sense of ending a campaign or war. Or, if Cyzicus was decisive, it was decisively in favor of the Romans, not Pontus. Cynwolfe (talk) 17:24, 30 October 2010 (UTC)Reply
The stub I wrote was strictly on the basis of the source given; PLWiki, quoting another source, gives much more detailed account, according to which, during the battle Romans lost not only 3000 soldiers killed (and the rest ended up locked up behind the walls), but more importantly, 64 out of 70 ships (4 destroyed, 60 captured), which meant they had lost their entire eastern fleet and the control of the seas. So definitely not the draw; the question is what we mean by "decisive" - if "turning the course of war" then Chalcedon was not decisive; if "one side losses much bigger than other, the winner is in control of the field and free to act as he pleases" - then yes, it was. Cheers,--Felis domestica (talk) 01:00, 31 October 2010 (UTC)Reply
Sorry, yes, I see now — you're just talking about Cotta's defeat, not the entire campaign. I was thinking of it in its entirety from the POV of Lucullus, not Cotta. The course of events this year is a little confused in the sources, which isn't unusual when Appian is involved. Lucullus was in command of land forces that following Cotta's defeat had a draw against Pontic land forces, followed by a naval confrontation during which Mithradates escaped and Lucullus captured or sank 32 ships of the Pontic fleet. Got it straight now, thanks. Cynwolfe (talk) 14:34, 31 October 2010 (UTC)Reply
I removed the tag, but deleted 'decisive,' because as immediate subsequent events in the campaign show, it was not a decisive battle. It was a clear victory for Pontus, but didn't decide anything. I believe "decisive battle" does mean "deciding the course of the war or a campaign." It doesn't seem there were any decisive battles in this sense during 74, for either side. Cynwolfe (talk) 14:40, 31 October 2010 (UTC)Reply
.jpg)
