Talk:Perso-Roman wars of 337–361

Usage of Primary sources

User:Refoelp reverted this article to its previous version with the edit summary, "Unaware of Kansas Bear's reasons for deleting so much useful information, including background, important details throughout; though he evidently possesses more and more recent information as to the first period of the war, I suggest that he interpolate them without undoing previous work which does not conflict with his own statements more."

This statement is a blantant falsehood. With the rewrite I included in the edit summary, "major rewrite using secondary sources, removed WP:OR, POV wording, weight, npov, etc."

• Wikipedia:Weight, Refoelp's version was written using outdated sources which were of a particular perspective and gives undue weight to a western perspective.

• Wikipedia:NPOV, Refoelp's version suffers from a clear NPOV issues.

• (Example:Persian wars of Constantius II), Constantius did not initiate any campaigns against Sasanid Persia
• Eastern allies (briefly)~found in the infobox

• Wikipedia:POV, Refoelp's version suffers from POV

• entrapped in the city on a moonless night inflicted devastating losses on the besiegers, and Shapur hastened with mounting outrage the persecution of its subjugation.(clearly Ammianus had no way of knowing whether Shapur was "outraged" or not.)
• The haughty Persian, however, whether in fear of his Imperial adversary or due to the unpropitious signs of sacrifice, declined to venture over the Tigris, and the entire summer of 361 was wasted in ineffectual maneuvering, each monarch on his bank of the river
• The vengeful fury of Shapur and his Asianic allies, insensible to the prudent remonstrances of Antoninus, required the utter ruin of Amida.
• "from which Shapur and the other barbarians who menaced the frontiers would have benefited greatly."

• Wikipedia:OR, Refoelp's version contains personal analysis.

• "In conclusion, though the Persians had obtained distinct successes on the field of battle; and the disgrace of Persian defeats of previous wars had been in some measure effaced by the rout of the Roman emperor himself at the head of veteran legions; still, no substantial capture of territory had been effected. Diocletian's fortification of Mesopotamia, in his wide-ranging programm of frontier defense, had proved effectual against the undisciplined Persian arms; the thwarted Shapur was obliged to retire frustrated in the interim."

• Off topic comments:

• "Of more paramount importance for the strength of the nation, the ethnic religion of Zoroastar, which had decayed under the Parthians into a wide variety of contradictory beliefs, supported by exclusive sects, each denouncing the heresy and schism of which the rest were guilty, was reunited and restored to veneration."
• "since the first 13 books of Ammianus Marcellinus' history, including his narrative of these events, are lost"
• "Constantius II, meanwhile, after defeating the Limigantes in the summer of 359". (According to the original title, this article is about Constantius' Persian wars)

• Irrelevant information: Refoelp's version is replete with multiple off topic comments, run-on sentences, The entire Background section is off topic, poorly written, and is not pertinent to the article.

Understand that these listed issues were found within 15 minutes and that Refoelp's version contains even more issues with NPOV, POV, off topic comments, etc. --Kansas Bear (talk) 15:14, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Agreed with Kansas Bear. i would add that Kansas Bear took the time to ask for other users' opinion about his edit : [1] and that the said edit was endorsed. Kansas Bear's version is a clear cut improvement of the article according to WP:MOS and is not less well sourced. Cheers.---Wikaviani (talk) 15:50, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

• On the charge that the article is biased by a western point of view, guilty-I accept the change of title, and if a change of wording is necessary regarding some statements, I freely accept them.
• The article has a faulty Wikipedia:POV-I disagree, and none of the examples are very apt. To suppose Shapur would be outraged at his losses, and his inability to capture the city, is merely to suppose that he was human, military, and ambitious. To state that Shapur was haughty, is merely to have before one the text of Shapur's letter to Constantius, given in Ammianus, XVII., 5, 3-8. And lastly, is it wrong to suggest that Antoninus (the Roman deserter) remonstrated, or that his arguments were prudent? I think both suppositions are quite reasonable, considering that the siege wasted the campaign season, that the capture of Amida was not a necessary part of his strategy, and that the casualties which he inccurred were approximately three-fold the Roman.

• Wikipedia: OR-That Diocletian refortified the frontiers may be seen in Gibbon, (Modern Library, 1932), ch. XIII., p. 312; that Shapur retired, is a fact modern scholars do not deny; that victories in the field (such as Singara) have the effect of increasing one's reputation, is a fact which I do not believe Kansas Bear will deny.

• Off topic? That the centralization of state power, the reform of the Zoroastarian religion, and the strong nationalistic spirit of the Sassanian dynasty were important factors in making Persia formidable to Rome, may be seen in Gibbon, ch. VIII., pp. 169-178; that Ammianus' lost books would contribute much to clarifying that period is a fact obvious in itself, given his undoubted reliability and clarity. And the fact that Constantius was returning from his war on the Limigantes will unquestionably be useful information to one in doubt as to the period's chronology.

• Irrelevance of Background. Well, the war began in such and such a manner is not exactly perspicuous to the reader uninitiated to the history of the times. That the writing is inflated, long-winded, and replete with run-off sentences I don't deny-I don't claim literary qualifications; but it would be better of the re-writer to abridge and clarify it, rather than entirely effacing it.–––Refoelp

First off, assuming this is "Refoelp", logging out to edit war is a blockable offense. Second, sign your posts. Third, you should refrain from false statements like, "Unaware of Kansas Bear's reasons for deleting so much useful information, including background, important details throughout..".

• "The article has a faulty Wikipedia:POV-I disagree, and none of the examples are very apt. To suppose Shapur would be outraged at his losses, and his inability to capture the city, is merely to suppose that he was human, military, and ambitious."

Clearly it is POV since Shapur did take Amida and Ammianus' opinion as a primary source, considering he had to flee Amida, is biased in this regard.

Further evidence of Amminanus' bias, "from which Shapur and the other barbarians who menaced the frontiers would have benefited greatly." ~~Ammianus, XXI., 15. Calling Shapur and "others" barbarians, clearly indicates a bias.

• "whether in fear of his Imperial adversary or due to the unpropitious signs of sacrifice, declined to venture over the Tigris.."

Seriously? "Whether in fear...."? Please, this is an encyclopedia, not some drama board.

• "That the centralization of state power, the reform of the Zoroastarian religion, and the strong nationalistic spirit of the Sassanian dynasty were important factors in making Persia formidable to Rome.."

And yet the nine secondary sources, currently used in the article, make no mention of this supposed factor.

• "...considering that the siege wasted the campaign season"

According to who? A primary source[Ammianus] or outdated historiography[Gibbon]?

"....Shapur made the right decision.[..]..when he stopped to besiege Amida and chose not to penetrate any deeper." ~~Military History of Late Rome 284-361, Ilkka Syvanne, page 365.

• "that the capture of Amida was not a necessary part of his strategy, and that the casualties which he inccurred were approximately three-fold the Roman."

Actually:

"....Shapur made the right decision.[..]..when he stopped to besiege Amida and chose not to penetrate any deeper." ~~Military History of Late Rome 284-361, Ilkka Syvanne, page 365.

"The fall of Amida raised a lot of questions and as with any major military[Roman] defeat, the usual complaints of a lack of manpower to man the defences and limited resources to pay for them were carted out." ~~Constantius II, Peter Crawford, page 200.

"Ammianus Marcellinus has left us a harrowing eyewitness account of the Iranian capture of Amida, one of Shapur's more spectacular victories." ~~Rome in the East: The Transformation of an Empire, Warwick Ball, page 24.

As for the WP:OR, "..in his wide-ranging programm of frontier defense, had proved effectual against the undisciplined Persian arms". Sounds like more original research to me. I have yet to read any secondary source stating that Shapur's forces were "undisciplined" or that "Diocletian's fortification program" was an influence. And since we know Narses took Amida(336), followed by Shapur's conquest of Amida(359), Singara(360), and Bazabde(360), such statements go against what secondary sources are showing us.~~Romes Desert Frontiers, David Kennedy, Derrick Riley, page 33. --Kansas Bear (talk) 01:26, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Very Good. According to Kansas Bear, Shapur viewed the enormous losses which he sustained in the early part of the siege (of Amida) with perfect coolness. Secondly, to view the far less cultured Persians, Germanics, Gaetulians as barbarians is not biased, but a definition of civilization. Show me the Persian Virgil, Tacitus, Plutarch, Augustin. Regarding Diocletian's fortification Programm, and the internal Sassanian reforms- nine sources may omit it, but if one gives it, (and calls it relevant,) you are called upon to disprove it, or cite a source explicitly to the contrary, if you wish to remove it. Next, Shapur's failure to appear on the west bank of the Tigris in 361 is ascribed by Ammianus to unauspiscious signs of sacrifice (XXI., 13, 8). To suppose that he might have been afraid is, I admit, a little far-fetched, all considered. But it has happened. Finally- the view of recent historians quoted by Kansas Bear, that Amida was judicious, spectacularly successful, etc. of Shapur, is directly opposite to Ammianus' and Gibbon's opinions of the matter. In light of the facts of which I am aware, Gibbon is correct-but, I say no. more. Certainly Wikipedia's policy prefers modern historians to older or primary historians such as Gibbon and Ammianus-and let me make clear that it is solely on these grounds that I close the controversy here. I daresay my previous talk-page edit makes clear my reasons for writing what I wrote; but since recent scholars have their own opinions-well, let the matter rest. –––Refoelp

I stopped reading when you said that the Persians were "far less cultured" and compared them to Germanic tribes. That says enough, really. --HistoryofIran (talk) 15:49, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

@Refoelp: : While i'm quite speechless by your words, especially from an editor who has editing claims about this topic, i would suggest you to take a look at this (where you can find some stuffs like "To a very large extent, the credit for the whole hospital system must be given to Persia") this, this, etc ...---Wikaviani (talk) 00:27, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Someone clearly does not know when to stop sticking their foot in their mouth...

• "Secondly, to view the far less cultured Persians, Germanics, Gaetulians as barbarians is not biased, but a definition of civilization."

• A History of Byzantium, Timothy E. Gregory, page 85, "But the Sassanids clearly were civilized and highly cultured, a match for the Romans on virtually every level, from culture to military power." --Kansas Bear (talk) 03:25, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Taken from my talk page:

• Hi. Sorry for late reply. I read both old revision and your revision, compared them, and your revision is much much better. Old revision was almost based on a single source and primary stuff while your revision represents diverse sources and scholars' works. Old revision had some kind of biased tone while your revision is neutral. Good work and keep it up. --Wario-Man (talk) 07:12, 10 August 2018 (UTC) --Kansas Bear (talk) 15:42, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

References

Number of defenders at Amida

@Kansas Bear: diff I just checked the source p. 169, and it actually states that the number of men in such seven legions plus civilians would have reached 50,000 in classical Roman period, but the defenders at Amida reached only 20,000. --Z 17:11, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

The page number is 189, not 169.

Sounds like a far cry from "c.5,000", but I would agree with the 20,000. Where does it say there was only 5,000 in Harrel's book? I see that Siege of Amida has 5,300 in the infobox.

And taken from the article;

• "Six Roman legions, the 13th, 10th, 5th Parthian legion and two rebel Gallic legions of Magnentius, whom Constantantius had sent east at the end of the civil war, had taken shelter in the city, bringing the numbers to" ???? --Kansas Bear (talk) 17:19, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

The garrison of Amida consisted of Legio V Parthia supported by an unidentified cavalry regiment. A detachment of Legio X Fortenses was also present. The garrison was reinforced by the legions Magnentius, Decentius, XXX Ulpia Victrix, Superventores and Praeventires and the cavalry regiment Comites Sagittarri. With the addition of these five legions the garrison was increased for c. 1,300 to c. 5,300. Roman legions of the Fourth Century had a paper strength of c. 1000 soldiers. Cavalry regiments had a paper strength of c. 500, but usually had around c. 350 troopers. A detachment (Vexillationes) usually numbered c. 300 soldiers. Harrel's estimate assumes that the reinforcing legions were between seventy and eighty per cent (the three Gallic legions were survivors of the Rebel army of Magnentius —they still retained the name of the usurpers).--LuciusHistoricus (talk) 19:10, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

In 357 CE, two years before Amida, at the Battle of Argentoratum, the Caesar Julian's army consisted of 5–6 legiones and 10–14 auxilia of infantry and 6 vexillationes of cavalry. According to Ammianus Marcellinus, Julian's army numbered 13,000 soldiers (3,000 of which were cavalry and about half of the infantry were auxilia). The 5—6 legions, a comparable legionary force, numbered c. 5,000.--LuciusHistoricus (talk) 19:41, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Can you use the current style of references as used in the article. Concerning your latest edit about the battle of Singara, does Harrel give a year? Also, you should do some major rewriting/paraphrasing of what you have added, numerous sentences appear to have been copied(ie.plagiarism) --Kansas Bear (talk) 23:06, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

From now on I will use the style of the article. Harrel puts Singara in 344. And I did indeed do some copying, but since that was my own work...LuciusHistoricus (talk) 08:01, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Oh, I forgot. Can we reach a concensus about the Roman strength numbers at Amida. I did some further research and found the following numbers: 5,300 Harrel and 7,000-10,000 Blockley. LuciusHistoricus (talk) 08:31, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

If Blockley checks out as a reliable source, then you can change the figure to a range;"5,300-20,000", or have either the lowest figure(Harrel) or highest figure(Crawford) and then make a note for the other two {{efn|......}} with corresponding references in the note. --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:19, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Or what you have now works fine. --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:33, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your insight and the tips. I'll probably keep it at what it is now, though. LuciusHistoricus (talk) 21:04, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

I think it got a little messy and some sources are misinterpreted. Currently the article states that:

The numbers of the Roman force at Amida are a point of debate: Crawford puts them at 20,000[29], Blockley at 7,000–10,000[33], and Harrel at 5,300[34]. The army of Shapur reportedly numbered 100,000–120,000 men.[30][35]

@LuciusHistoricus: If I understood correctly, you counted above the number of regular Roman soldiers, but the participants of the siege consisted of civilians as well (typical of many sieges of the period). Indeed, the cited Crawford explicitly mentions civilians when putting the number at 20,000. So there doesn't seem to be any disagreement between these two sources. The reference 30 (Sellwood 2011) is actually putting the number of the Roman defenders at 120,000, not the besiegers: "Plague soon broke out amongst the 120,000 defenders, but their sallies hampered siege operations". (Greatrex states that Ammianus figure in XIX.2.14 "has been emended by some from 20,000 to 120,000"). --Z 13:12, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

If we use the definition 'defenders' instead of soldiers, we can put the number at 20,000. Maybe add a note that Harrel breaks it down to 5,300 soldiers and 16,000 civilians. I don't know which definition Crawford uses. Blockley was writting about soldiers (the 7,000–10,000). So that leaves the 120,000 of Sellwood. Maybe we should use a range: 20,000–120,000... LuciusHistoricus (talk) 14:29, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Crawford does not say defenders, it explicitly says that the number of regulars, auxiliaries, Amidans, and other civilians escaped from elsewhere reached 20,000. --Z 20:35, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Encyclopaedia Iranica, Amida;

• "In the early 4th century A.D., Constantius fortified Amida and based Legio V Parthica there, threatening Iranian territory to the south. As a result, the Sasanian Šāhpūr II besieged it in A.D. 359 with the assistance of the Chionites. Plague soon broke out amongst the 120,000 defenders, but their sallies hampered siege operations. After seventy-three days the walls were breached; Ammianus, who was present himself, escaped to Antioch, but most of the Roman leaders were executed." --Kansas Bear (talk) 04:36, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

The number of Roman soldiers can be deduced and approximated; Units present: 6 legions, 1 vexillation of legionaries and 2 cavalry regiments = 5,300–7,300. The number of civilians (Amidans and refugees) is harder to deduce since the population of Amida is unkown. LuciusHistoricus (talk) 16:02, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

References

The Battle(s) of Singara

In the article two armed conflicts ("battles") near Singara seem to have been "merged" in to one major battle. As I see it there were two significant events: one in 343/344 (a major battle) and one in 348 (a blockade/siege and a night-time raid). The article says:

• In 343/344/348 Shapur met Constantius in a battle near Singara....

My suggestion is to break them up. There is a paragraph dedicated to the 348 event in the article. We could move the 348 data there.--LuciusHistoricus (talk) 10:10, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Why did you remove the note sourced by Crawford? In fact, why did you remove all the other notes concerning the battle of Singara? This appears to be quite disruptive.

According to you:

• "Removed the notes about the battle being in 334/344/348. These were seperated events, so no need for the note."

This is clearly not true. Even Crawford states:

"Not even the date of this, the biggest confrontation between Constantius and Shapur, is certain, with 343, 344, and 348 all mentioned." (Crawford, p.55). --Kansas Bear (talk) 01:20, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Other authors (Harrel, Syvanne) disagree. According to them there were two battles at Singara.LuciusHistoricus (talk) 13:21, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Also, we do not need in-depth details of the battle of Singara, that would be more appropriate for the article itself. This article concerns the Perso-Roman wars of 337–361, and should simply give highlights. --Kansas Bear (talk) 01:59, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Then why didn't you remove the in-depth details about the Siege of Amida? You SEEM to be deleting all my edit (and just my edits).LuciusHistoricus (talk) 13:21, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Are you the user:Refoelp ???

No.LuciusHistoricus (talk) 12:24, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Your edits removed referenced information with only your opinion given as a reason.

• "Other authors (Harrel, Syvanne) disagree."

So? You read the two authors that stated Roman victory and threw away the rest. Got it.

No, I wanted to seperate the 343/344 from the 348 event.LuciusHistoricus (talk) 12:24, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

1.Barnes gives two different dates(343, 348) with two different battles.

That's my point; two battles instead of one.

2.Crawford states there may have been two separate battles in the 340's.

Again (maybe) two battles.

3.Harrel and Syvanne agree on year but Syvanne uses the term Alaina(Harrel states a pyrrhic Roman victory, Syvanne states Roman victory)

Harrel mentions two battles; one in 344 and another in 348.

4.Michael H. Dodgeon, Samuel N. C. Lieu state 343 or 344.(Dodgeon, Lieu, 159)

But do they mention an event in 348? If so, then there were two battles.

5.Noel Emmanuel Lenski states one or two battles with the year(s) 344/and or 348(The Cambridge Companion to the Age of Constantine, Volume 13. page 343)

Again: (maybe) two battles.

6.Syvanne's book The Age of Hippotoxotai: Art of War in Roman Military Revival and Disaster (491-636), she indicates 343/344 for Singara.

But does he mention an event in 348? If so, then there were two battles.

7.The analysis of the sources from the point of view of the “classical theory of war” elaborated by C. Clausewitz, unambiguously demonstrates that the winning side in this (night) battle(344) were the Persians.(Dmitriev)

I'm not arguing who won. I think there were two battles (343/344 and 348).

8.Don Taylor states a battle at Singara 344 and was a Persian victory(Taylor, 166)

Again: Does he mention an event in 348? If so, then there were two battles.

The date and result of this battle(s) is not so definitive.

I agree with you on the result of the battle(s). But that was not my point! My point was that there were probably two battles. One in 343 or 344 and another in 348.

As for your "Then why didn't you remove the in-depth details about the Siege of Amida? You SEEM to be deleting all my edit (and just my edits)", I suggest you read Wikipedia:Weight, you wrote 14 lines of Harrel's interpretation of the battle of Singara, for Crawford you wrote two. Harrel states Roman victory, Crawford stated a Roman rout. Judging from the information I have provided, your edit(s) was not NPOV. --Kansas Bear (talk) 17:44, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

I agree with you on the not NPOV. I should have abbreviated Harrel to match Crawford.LuciusHistoricus (talk) 20:15, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Comment I'm quite surprised to see that while LuciusHistoricus has been editing this encyclopedia for about 3 years, they seem to ignore guidelines like WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV. I totally agree with Kansas Bear's above comments. Since we have reliable sources supporting different outcomes, both views should be fairly represented.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:26, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

You have a point there, but that wasn't the issue. The issue was that I wanted to seperate the two events (343/344 and 348) and Kansas Bear disagreed. I do agree with your comment that I should have followed WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV. One lives and learns. LuciusHistoricus (talk) 12:10, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

I understand your point, but do you have reliables sources that support that two events theory ?---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:34, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

According to Harrel (the Nisibis War) there was a pitched battle in 344 (Harrel p.78) and a nighttime raid on the Sassanid army camp in 348 (Harrel p.82). The 348 raid disrupted the Sassanid invasion of that year. The 348 raid is also supported by Barnes (p.164).LuciusHistoricus (talk) 19:24, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Is this view representing the mainstream of what reliable sources about this topic say ? I have some doubts about that.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:04, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Barnes and Harrel talk about two battles (both are reliable sources). Crawford and Lenski state there may have been two battles (they seem reliable too).LuciusHistoricus (talk) 22:22, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

1. Please stop posting within my talk page posts. Hence the reason why I have not wasted the time to try and read your response(s).

2. IF you are not user:Refoelp, then you should stop using Ibid(like Refoelp), stop writing poorly worded English sentences[2](like Refoelp), stop writing references like Refoelp and using the same references as Refoelp(Ammianus Marcellenus, et.al.), stop using the word Persian instead of Sasanian/Sasanid(like user:Refoelp), and an amazing overlap of commonly edited articles with user:Refoelp. Yeah......

3. "But does he[Syvanne] mention an event in 348? If so, then there were two battles.", unless you have evidence, posting a question does not make it a fact.

Brings facts backed by reliable sources, not questions. --Kansas Bear (talk) 00:23, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Barnes, Harrel and Dodgeon & Lieu mention two battles. Crawford and Lenski state there may have been two separate battles in the 340's. That's five reliable sources.LuciusHistoricus (talk) 12:36, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

1. Ok. Will do.

2. Still Not Refoelp.

3. Agreed.LuciusHistoricus (talk) 10:54, 19 August 2020 (UTC)