Talk:Siege of Petra (550–551)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Siege of Petra (550–551)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Iazyges (talk · contribs) 17:56, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Will start soon. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 17:56, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Criteria

GA Criteria
GA Criteria: 1 1.a Y 1.b Y 2 2.a Y 2.b Y 2.c Y 2.d Y 3 3.a Y 3.b Y 4 4.a Y 5 5.a Y 6 6.a Y 6.b Y

• No DAB links Y
• No dead links Y
• No missing citations Y

Discussion

• Greatrex, Geoffrey; Lieu, Samuel's publisher (Psychology Press) isn't great, but both are respected historians and the book was later reprinted by Routledge, so no objection.
• Bury is used widely, but appropriately to provide detail, supported by more recent academic sources, so no objection. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 16:44, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
• Suggest adding images as possible, perhaps File:Lazica in Late Antiquity.svg or File:Roman-Persian Frontier, 565 AD.png. -- Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 16:50, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

I added several photos. --Z 11:48, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

@ZxxZxxZ: "Bury 1958, pp. 101–103" in Notes does not have an associated Reference; article otherwise is good to go. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 16:35, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

I added the corresponding full reference, it was missing. I also added a new section containing scholarly analysis of Procopius' narration of the event. --Z 11:40, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Prose Suggestions

Please note that almost all of these are suggestions, and can be implemented or ignored at your discretion. Any changes I deem necessary for the article to pass GA standards I will bold.

Lede

• Suggest restructuring and consolidating the lede to perhaps:

  The siege of Petra commenced in 550 AD, between the Byzantines under general Bessas, and the Sasanian garrison of Petra in the country of Lazica, during the Lazic War. The fortress has previously been held by the Byzantines before it was seized in 541 by the Sasanian King of Kings Khosrow I, and his Lazi allies. This conquest gave the Sassanian Empire access to the Black Sea. After a failed attempt to recapture Petra in 549, Byzantine Emperor Justinian I send an army under Bessas to retake the fortress. The Byzantine historian Procopius described the resulting siege in vivid detail.

  Is it correct to begin with "The siege of Petra commenced..."? Since there are several Sieges of Petra, Lazica. --Z 10:55, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

  I changed my mind; it seems the is grammatically correct, though less accurate here, so maybe the usage is not inappropriate here. --Z 11:00, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

  Can we change "commenced" to something like "fought" (the corresponding sentence probably needs some rewording)? I think "commenced" is more appropriate in the section "Firse phase" where we are describing the course of the siege. --Z 10:55, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

  Perhaps was fought instead of commenced? Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 11:00, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

  Yes, that's what I mean. --Z 11:02, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

  I guess average readers of the article would be confused by the words "Byzantine", "Sasanian", "King of Kings", "battering ram", "acropolis", etc. so I'm still trying to simplify things. Besides, I guess I should reduce the wikilinks in the lede. --Z 10:55, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

  Not much that can be done there honestly; IMO a healthy number of wikilinks in the lede is good for the article. Casual readers can get a quick grasp of the topic in the lede, check out any articles on stuff they don't understand, and then proceed to get more details in the body. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 11:00, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

  The initial mining operations that were undertaken by the Byzantines were ineffective. Based on advice from the Sabirs, their nomadic allies, the Byzantines constructed a type of lightweight battering ram that could be deployed on the sloped plain leading to the fort walls. The defenders responded by throwing incendiary bombs from an improvised tower, however, a part of the wall was successfully damaged in the attempt. Bessas and his men attempted to scale the walls twice, resulting in fierce fighting and heavy casualties. A second part of the wall also collapsed, causing both sides to divide their men. The Byzantines gained the advantage due to their numeric superiority. During the fighting, the combination of violent winds and frantic use of incendiary materials led to the wooden tower from which the defenders were throwing their bombs catching fire, causing the Sasanian defense to collapse. The wounded were captured, however, the remainder preferred to fight to the death rather than surrender, and retreated to the acropolis, which the Byzantines torched. In the end, casualties were high, with the majority of men on both sides either killed or wounded. After the victory, Bessas demolished the fort walls. A large Sasanian relief force failed to arrive in time and instead shifted its focus of action to the eastern part of Lazica. Bessas retreated westward and avoided further military action.

  I almost copy and pasted these into the lead. I made some changes, but since my English prose is poor, feel free to edit it. --Z 10:55, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Background

• Add the Siege of Petra (541) here and link to it; refs can be pulled from the article itself, and consolidate
• Perhaps: In 541 AD the Sasanian King of Kings Khosrow I led a campaign to capture the city of Petra, with the aid of Lazi King Gubazes II of Lazica. The magister militum per Armeniam John Tzibus had concentrated his forces in this Black Sea port city, but when Khosrow sent a detachment under Aniabedes to attack the fort, he found it seemingly deserted. Another detachment was sent to destroy the gate with a battering ram but was defeated when the Byzantine forces quickly rushed out of the gate in a surprise raid. The Sasanians then camped outside the fort and began a regular siege. After several days of battle, the Sasanians entered the fort through the broken walls, and the Byzantines surrendered. After this, a garrison was established. [End of text pulled from the other article] This assault marked the beginning of the Lazic War.[1] The new Byzantine magister militum per Armeniam Dagisthaeus laid siege to Petra in 549, after Gubazes II switched his allegiance to the Byzantines, however a large Sasanian relief force under Mihr-Mihroe forced the Byzantines to retreat. Further conflicts occurred, but the strategic fort still remained in Sasanian hands.[2] The Byzantine emperor Justinian I responded by replacing Dagisthaeus with Bessas in 550. This decision was initially criticized by the Byzantines (specify who, historians? other commanders?) due to the latter's old age and inglorious record during the sack of Rome in 546. After taking command, Bessas dispatched an army against the rebellious Abasgi tribe and proceeded to lay siege to Petra.[3][4][5]

  Done as suggested, with some changes; I also expanded this section a bit. --Z 13:16, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Siege

• Suggest perhaps After the failed Byzantine siege in 549, the Sasanians had garrisoned Petra with a fresh 3,000-strong force and filled the breaches in the foundation of the walls with sandbags covered with thick planed beams to function as the foundation of a new wall.[6] The number of defenders at Petra in 550 was 2,600 and were reportedly "brave and resolute" (add according to whom if known.). The remaining 400 men were probably assigned to lesser fortifications or were busied with duties outside the fort such as foraging, scouting, or escorting.[3][4][5][6][7] The garrison was very well-supplied with arms, and foodstuffs, and received a water supply through hidden aqueduct pipes.[8]

  Done as suggested, with small changes and addition of material. --Z 14:45, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

First phase

• Suggest consolidation here as well, perhaps:
  • Bessas commenced the siege of Petra in 550, with an army of 6,000. Similar to the previous siege by Dagisthaeus in 549, Bessas began mining operations against a large section of the wall that was partly damaged during the previous siege. When repairing the damaged wall, the Sasanians had used large, smooth timber beams to tie the walls together, so instead of collapsing or tipping over, the undermined part of the wall sank in one piece regularly "as if it were purposely lowered by a machine", and the only effect was that the height of the wall was reduced. The mine was overwhelmed. Using a conventional Roman battering ram was not feasible, because the only way to the walls was through a sloped uphill plane where traditional wheel-mounted rams could not be deployed.[9][8] At this time a group of nobles of the Sabirs (a warlike nomadic people native to the Caucasus) visited the Byzantine camp in order to receive a sum of money from an envoy of Justinian I. Seeing the situation of the Byzantines, the Sabirs revealed to them a simple but ingenious way to batter a wall in sloped places: instead of using beams and wheels which made the frame heavy, they used woven osier twigs covered with hides, making the battering ram light enough to be carried by forty men on a sloped plane. The men would be protected by the layer of hides. Each ram was mounted on chains to be swung swifter. Three such rams were constructed, equipped with standard Roman ram-heads. Heavily armored sappers equipped with long poles with hooks would accompany each ram and pull down weakened masonry.[9][10][11]
  • The Sasanian garrison placed a pre-made wooden "tower" on the wall and from there fully-armored men hurled fire pots containing a particular mixture of sulfur, pitch, and naphtha (a composition called "oil of Medea") onto the top of the rams. This "wooden tower" that is spoken of by the Byzantine historian Procopius might have been the frame of a trestle trebuchet that protected pulling crews from enemy fire. The armored men with poles with hooks that accompanied the rams showed another functionality here, as they quickly pulled off the flaming projectiles from the roof of their machines to prevent serious damage.[12][13][14] A breach was made in the wall by the battering rams, and after a short speech, Bessas led his men to scale the wall with ladders while Byzantine archers shot arrows into the fort/ Despite his old age, Bessas himself was reportedly the first to scale the wall.[15][16] Procopius said of the battle:

There a battle took place and a display of valor by both Romans and Persians such as I at least believe has never once been seen in these times. For while the number of the barbarians amounted to two thousand three hundred, the Romans counted as many as six thousand. And practically all those on both sides who were not killed received wounds, and it proved true that exceedingly few survived with their bodies intact.

— Procopius, History of the Wars, Volume V, Book VIII (I would add an sfn ref for Procopius here, but it's up to you).

• • Many of the Byzantine attackers fell to the ground. Bessas fell too, but before the Sasanians could shoot him with arrows, his guards (doryphoroi) formed a testudo around him, and as he ordered, dragged him to a safe place, as he was both old and obese. After Bessas' second charge, the Sasanians declared themselves ready to capitulate and asked for some time, but since both sides were still fighting, Bessas did not trust them and refused to stop the assault.[15][16] A second part of the wall collapsed as a result of the earlier failed mining attempt, forcing both sides to divide their forces. The Byzantines gradually gained the upper hand in the ensuing conflict due to their numerical superiority. A certain John the Armenian, together with a few other Armenians managed to climb up a precipice overlooking the battlements and enter the fort;[17] but apparently, this was a formulated trap that resulted in their deaths in the resulting melee.[18]

• • While the battering rams were operating and the Sasanians in their wooden tower were frantically hurling fire pots at them, a gale-force south wind suddenly blew and set part of the wooden tower alight. The fire gradually spread by naphtha leakage and finally consumed the whole tower together with the armored men inside it, the charred bodies of whom fell over the attackers and the defenders. This turned the tide of the battle. The Sasanian resistance collapsed and the Byzantines exploited the confusion and finally managed to breach the fortress. At this stage, nearly half of the Sasanians had already been killed. 730 men from the garrison were taken as prisoners, all of whom except 18 were wounded. The prisoners were sent to the Byzantine emperor in Constantinople. The other 500 retreated back to a small acropolis or high citadel. Many of "the best of the Romans" were killed too, including John the Armenian.[17][19]

  Done as suggested; there are some changes. --Z 15:40, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Second phase

• Suggest perhaps:
  • The 500 Sasanian forces who had shut themselves in the acropolis refused to surrender, in spite of an offer of capitulation, preferring instead a heroic death. Bessas pressed on negotiation by sending a soldier to the wall to persuade the defenders by an exhortation, making references to Christian piety, but this failed too. He resorted to force by torching the citadel by means of throwing incendiary materials, hoping that the Sasanians would surrender, but they decided to stay and die. The attackers "marveled" at the event.[20][19][16] At the beginning of the siege, the Byzantines had destroyed the aqueduct. During the siege, a prisoner revealed that there is another pipe beneath the visible one, concealed by the earth, which the attackers destroyed too. After the siege was complete, the Byzantines found out that the garrison had access to water. It was then revealed that still a third pipe was concealed deep below the second pipe.[20] A large amount of Sasanian supplies and equipment were captured, showing the importance of this fort to the Sasanians. Bessas then razed the fort walls to the ground, an act commended by Emperor Justinian.[3][4][5]

    Done as suggested, with little changes. --Z 15:40, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Aftermath

Suggest perhaps:

• • With the capture and subsequent destruction of Petra, Khosrow's scheme to challenge the Byzantine hegemony in the Black Sea was foiled.[10] While a relief force under Mihr-Mihroe consisting mostly of cavalry and eight elephants was on their way to yet again relieve Petra, they did not arrive in time, only receiving the news of its fall in the spring of 551. If the Sasanians could not have the Black Sea coast, they committed instead to seize the lion's share of Lazica. The Sasanians thus immediately shifted focus to dominate eastern Lazica and its dependencies, Suania, and Scymnia. This was achieved as Mihr-Mihroe immediately captured the Byzantine forts of Sarapanis and Scanda. He also made an unsuccessful attempt to capture Archaeopolis, the capital city and the main Byzantine stronghold in Lazica. This change of focus set the tone for the next five years of the Lazic War.[5][4][20][10] Meanwhile, Bessas retired west to Pontica and busied himself with its administration.[3] The Byzantine forces in Lazica withdrew west to the mouth of the Phasis, while the Lazi, including their king Gubazes II and his family, sought refuge in the mountains.[21] The success at Petra salvaged Bessas' reputation as a general, but as a result of subsequent setbacks, he was dismissed and exiled.[22][3]

    Done as suggested; almost copy & pasted, with some wikilinks added. --Z 15:51, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

  • @ZxxZxxZ: That is all my suggestions, mostly related to consolidation and some minor grammar/word choice changes. A neat little article. Mostly good to go, aside from some unspecified bits, and the need to expand the background with the siege of 541; I'd also recommend removing the "The ruins of Petra" and "The plain leading to the walls of Petra was too sloped for traditional wheel-mounted battering rams to be deployed." images as excessive, and shifting the "Map of the Byzantine–Sasanian frontier. In 541 AD, the small but strategic region of Lazica became the new battlefield of the Roman–Persian Wars." image to the left. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 17:42, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

    Thanks, I think it needs another look, since I have made some changes and added some new materials. I removed the photo "The ruins of Petra" which showed a general view of the ruins. I shifted the first photo, though it caused the text to be sandwiched between photos. The photo showing a battering ram is informative, I think; I improved its caption to better match the photo. --Z 15:51, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Z1720 (talk) 15:36, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that at the end of the siege of Petra (550–551), the overwhelmed Persian garrison preferred being burned alive rather than surrendering? Source: Bury, John Bagnell (1889). A History of the Later Roman Empire: From Arcadius to Irene (395 A.D. to 800 A.D.). Vol. 1. Macmillan and Company, p. 449.
  • ALT1: ... that the Romans' problem of battering the fort walls using their heavy machines during the siege of Petra (550–551) was solved by using a primitive one devised by their nomadic allies? Source: Bury, John Bagnell (1889). A History of the Later Roman Empire: From Arcadius to Irene (395 A.D. to 800 A.D.). Vol. 1. Macmillan and Company, pp. 446–7.
  • ALT2: ... that at the end of the siege of Petra (550–551), the Romans found out there was yet another pipe beneath the one they destroyed that was supplying water to the besieged garrison all along? Source: Bury, John Bagnell (1889). A History of the Later Roman Empire: From Arcadius to Irene (395 A.D. to 800 A.D.). Vol. 1. Macmillan and Company, p. 449.
  • ALT3: ... that a particular mixture of sulfur, pitch, and naphtha was used as an incendianry weapon by the defenders during the siege of Petra (550–551)? Source: Bury, John Bagnell (1889). A History of the Later Roman Empire: From Arcadius to Irene (395 A.D. to 800 A.D.). Vol. 1. Macmillan and Company, pp. 447.
  • Reviewed:
  • Comment: The article is about a siege of the Roman-Persian wars, recorded in vivid detail by Procopius.

Improved to Good Article status by ZxxZxxZ (talk). Self-nominated at 15:30, 5 August 2022 (UTC).

• AGF on the offline book sources. Newly promoted to GA, no previous DYK. Long enough. Earwig and spot checks find no copyvio, again AGF on offline sources. There are four previous DYK credits, so no QPQ is needed. Prefer ALT2 personally, although ALT0 is also fine. In ALT1, I'm not sure primitive is a useful adjective there, and it isn't one used in the article. ALT3 doesn't seem too interesting on its own. The promoter might consider piping the date from the bolded link, or integrating the years into the text for flow. CMD (talk) 13:10, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

  I would like to change my mind, and propose ALT2, since it is more hookish. I made a correction (pipe -> pipes) since there were three pipes (two destroyed, one missed). I did the piping:

  • ALT2: ... that at the end of the siege of Petra in 551 AD, the Romans found out there was yet another pipe beneath the ones they destroyed that was supplying water to the besieged garrison all along? Source: Bury, John Bagnell (1889). A History of the Later Roman Empire: From Arcadius to Irene (395 A.D. to 800 A.D.). Vol. 1. Macmillan and Company, p. 449.

  --Z 13:14, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

  The new ALT2 is great for me as well. Striking the others for clarity. CMD (talk) 13:18, 6 August 2022 (UTC)