Talk:Battle of Samarra (363)

Untitled

I added a "territory" category to the Warbox. And included that Jovian, as a result of this disastrous battle was forced to cede districts on the Tigris and Nisibis.--Arsenous Commodore 20:26, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Why this article was so severely vandalized?

1. WikiProject Afghanistan reference was entirely groundless (why someone keeps putting this reference in unrelated battles, is beyond me). I removed it.

2. First and last paragraph were severely distorted and that action seems completely intentional. Take a look at this : The battle of Samarra took place in 363 after the invasion of Sassanid Persia (Iran) by the Romans. Despite this, Roman Emperor Julian the Apostate was killed in this battle. Despite what? Or this : Julian's successor, Emperor Jovian, made a successful delay ploy by promising Shapur that he would surrender a total of five Roman provinces, including strategic cities such as Nisibis. Jovian never delivered on this humiliating treaty.. Of cource (and as Arvand already said before me), we all know from reliable sources that strategically important districts and fortresses like Nisibis were ceded to Iranians. I'll try to fix all these.Dipa1965 (talk) 13:45, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Further work needed

The article needs citations (esp. for the numbers of soldiers involved).

It may also need perhaps moving to another title. For how do we know for sure that the vicinity of modern Samarra was the place of battlefield? In the article for Julian the Apostate it is mentioned that the battle took place near Maranga (where a major battle between the two opponents was fought a few days before). That was correct, if we accept Ammianus narrative.Dipa1965 (talk) 13:45, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

To be or not to be "decisive"

This was not a decisive Persian victory for two reasons:

• It was just a skirmish. A skirmisg cannot be called decisive.
• A simple military event (especially a skirmish as in this case) is usually not the reason for a decisive change of balance. The death of Julian at Samarra was not the reason for the catastrophic outcome of his expedition: it would be so even if Julian was not killed there.

--Dipa1965 (talk) 17:14, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I think that the article becomes more and more single-sourced (Iranica) because this is the only way to prove a "decisive", "strategic", whatever, victory. No need for such a pov pushing. I will come back with other scholarly sources who do not support that view.--Dipa1965 (talk) 10:12, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

R. Browning says (see citation in article) that Jovian led his army to the left bank of Tigris under continuous fighting. Therefore the peace treaty that followed was *not* the direct result of this skirmish. Actually, Iranica does not support the latter: it only says that "Julian was soundly defeated" meaning from a strategic point of view. This is entirely correct since his campaign led to a catastrophic failure. Please do not add a disproportionate value to this skirmish (or, at least, discuss here first). Thank you.--Dipa1965 (talk) 22:50, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

After checking the sources that supposedly support the "decisive Sassanian victory" in this battle I found the following:

• Source 1 (Beate Dignas, Engelbert Winter, Rome and Persia in Late Antiquity: Neighbours and Rivals). You can check page 34 (pages 35-37 are not related to Julian) in Google Books. It simply says that Julian's advanced ended in catastrophe. He was wounded in battle and died. No strategic Sassanian victory. On the contrary, on p.92, the book explicitly says that Romans defeated the Persians in the Bbattle of Samarra.
• Source 2 (iranicaonline): After the emperor Julian’s march to Ctesiphon in 363 the Romans were soundly defeated. The battle of Samarra is not mentioned. The reader can conclude that the word defeated refers to the final outcome of Julian's expedition.
• Source 3 (iranicaonline): So far this is the only source that seems to support the defeat of the Romans in this battle (albeit Samarra's name is missing)

So far, modern sources, in their majority, do not support the theory that this battle was a defeat to the Romans. Surely they agree that the outcome of the expdition was catastrophic, due to the scorched earth tactics and the Iranian harassment of the Roman army.--Dipa1965 (talk) 16:45, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Oh, the "Persian victory" saga returns. User:Wikaviani, are you able to bring reliable secondary sources to support the view that "Persian victory" is the current scholarly consensus? So far, only Iranica supports this view, other scholarly sources disagree (see paragraphs above).--Dipa1965 (talk) 20:25, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

@Dipa1965: Hi, thank you for your remarks and sorry for this late answer, i was away from my computers. Firstly, i did not read the talk page before my edit and i'm sorry for that. Second, i don't agree with you when you say that a skirmish can not be decisive. Actually, when the commander of an army is killed in a battle, the outcome can be decisive (even if it's not necessarily decisive). Finally, since sources seem to be divergents about the result, it's of course ok to state "disputed" for the outcome, but i would like to see more sources in the article, so that i'm going to rephrase it and include both sources (those with Persian victory and those with Roman victory). Best regards.---Wikaviani (talk) 11:29, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Hello Wikaviani. I wholeheartedly agree that more sources are needed and I also generally agree with you on the need for a better explanation about the disputed outcome. I will try to bring 1-2 few secondary sources that I have in mind (if they are clear on the matter). And please don't mind the delay, the most important thing is discussing and finding a consensus. I am also sorry about the "saga" thing (sometimes I also fail to carefuly read a discussion before editing so I had to be more careful on commenting your edit). Best regards.--Dipa1965 (talk) 16:03, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

@Dipa1965: Thanks, so i'm gonna wait for your sources before any further edit of the article. Best regards.---Wikaviani (talk) 00:57, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Wikaviani, after checking a multitude of scholarly resources (general histories like Cambridge Ancient History as well as Julian's biographies and military history editions like e.g. Soldiers and Ghosts - A History of Battle in Classical Antiquity), I found nothing more specific on the matter. It seems that modern historians (at least those I checked) downplay the battle as a skirmish (most of them don't even name Samarra). Their universal view, at least this is what I concluded after so much reading, is that the campaign was doomed due to two factors: the brilliant Persian strategy of scorched earth policy and harrasment on one side and the ill-conceived Roman strategy, especially after crossing Tigris. Plus, the secondary sources I read do not mention a direct or indirect result of the death of the emperor on the discipline of the army. It seems clear that the result of Julian's expedition would be disastrous for the Roman Empire even without himself being killed at Samarra.--Dipa1965 (talk) 18:43, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

@Dipa1965: Ok, thanks for the time you spent on it. Because of this blatant lack of reliable materials, i suggest leaving the outcome as it is. Best regards.---Wikaviani (talk) 03:58, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Outcome

@Dipa1965: Hi, we discussed this matter two years ago and i agreed with your points back then, however, when i look at the sources, it appears that Iranica supports a Roman defeat and the Brill source says, on page 62 "A prominent 4th century defeat was suffered at the battle of Samarra in 363". As to the CUP source, it says, on page 34 "Julian, renewed the Roman offensive in the East in order to deal with the situation along the Eastern frontier of the Roman Empire once and for all. His advance far into Sasanian territory was successful at first but ended in catastrophe.", since Julian's campaign ended up with the battle of Samarra, this source is not supporting a Roman victory either ... The only mention of a Roman victory in the CUP source is on page 92, it quotes two 1500 years old authors, one being Greek (Zosimus) and the other being Roman (Ammianus) and says "In this situation the two armies clashed at Samarra; the Romans defeated the Persians but Julian was wounded and died on 26 June 363. With regard to the emperor’s death, other sources diverge from these accounts.". It seems pretty clear that the Sasanian (decisive) victory is way better sourced by modern reliable sources (BRILL, Encyclopedia Iranica ...). Best.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:26, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Hello Wikaviani! I still think we overestimate the importance of the "battle" itself. In the end, Iranians were temporarily prevented from inflicting a major strike against the Roman army (during the battle) but the death of Julian accelerated the course of the events (the expedition was clearly a catastrophic failure by then, since the Roman army was in grave danger of disintegrating due to lack of supplies). Anyway, I can see that some major secondary sources insist on Iranian victory (probably due to the death of Julian) while other (D.S.Potter, F.Paschoud, CUP at one point imho) either downgrade its importance or suggest a Roman victory (very short term, that is for sure). I think D.S.Potter is right on spot that the importance of this battle was negligible. If Romans would be in position to extricate themselves of the Mesopotamian trap (and they weren't), they would be able to do so with or without Julian.--Dipa1965 (talk) 19:33, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

I get your point, but we have to follow WP:NPOV and as the above sources say, this battle (as it is described by the sources) was the last one of the campaign and it ended up badly for the Romans (this article is a mess by the way, Gibbon is used as a "source" numerous times ...). Pinging some knowledgeable editors to have their input too. @Kansas Bear, HistoryofIran, and LouisAragon: gentlemen, your opinion would be appreciated.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:54, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

So what is the real argument? What is represented in the infobox? We have sources that call it a Roman victory, we have sources that call it a Persian/Sasanian victory, and we have sources like Potter p518 that refrain to assign a victor to this battle/skirmish/raid. I do not think it would be too difficult to re-write the article(replacing the primary and outdated sources) and present it from all perspectives. --Kansas Bear (talk) 22:42, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, this article (too) needs a major rewrite. The argument of this section is about what should be written in the infobox about the battle's outcome. I have found few sources that support a Roman victory, some being, in my opinion, unreliable for this topic, like S. R. Ward. Sources about a Sasanian victory seem easier to find but they seem to describe the battle's outcome as a Persian victory primarily because of Julian's death.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:14, 10 May 2020 (UTC)