This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Military history: Roman & Byzantine / Medieval 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: Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces: /  Roman and Byzantine military history task force Medieval warfare task force (c. 500 – c. 1500) Classical Greece and Rome Mid‑importance 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 Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Greece: Byzantine Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Greece, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Greece on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GreeceWikipedia:WikiProject GreeceTemplate:WikiProject GreeceGreek articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Byzantine world task force. Iran Mid‑importance 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 Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Middle Ages Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle Ages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Middle Ages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Middle AgesWikipedia:WikiProject Middle AgesTemplate:WikiProject Middle AgesMiddle Ages articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Even though the Anastasian War was a Persian victory in strategic sense, I would dare to suggest an inclusion of "Persian Defensive victory" into the battle box. Certainly, the Byzantines failed to take over both Nisibis and Edessa at the end and later the treaty was signed which the Byzantines agreed to pay tribute to the Sassanid Empire as you wrote in this article , I don't see how its not the Sassanid Victory. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.146.2.42 ( talk) 20:05, 18 October 2009 (UTC) reply

:I think you are misunderstanding the context into which something can be called "decisive". The outcome of the Anastasian war (itself a series of battles) could be called decisive if it would give Persians a definitive long term strategic advantage (ie something more important than this war) over Byzantines. See my comment in the discussion of Battle of Samarra for another crucial mistake in this obsession with decisive victories. Regards,-- Dipa1965 ( talk) 17:13, 19 October 2009 (UTC) reply

Oops, I misread "defensive". Sorry. But, again, what you asked does not apply. It would be a defensive victory if Byzantines were the ones who attacked first.-- Dipa1965 ( talk) 22:37, 19 October 2009 (UTC) reply

@ Gypsygreek: This article works just fine without a "result" statement, and this edit (which was previously reverted) appears to be your own original synthesis in favour of a particular viewpoint, which violates Wikipedia's core content policies. Please obtain a consensus with other editors on the talk page here before you try to add this again. You should base your arguments on what reliable sources say explicitly about this war. R Prazeres ( talk) 15:57, 12 July 2024 (UTC) reply

The Persian king had the goal of receiving large payments in the form of tribute from Byzantium, but in the end the Persian king received a single payment in a small amount,and also Byzantium, contrary to the treaty of 422, built a fortress on the borders and the Persians could not do anything about it. Also, the Byzantine troops ultimately defeated the Persian ones.Tell me why this didn’t victory of Byzantium ? Gypsygreek ( talk) 17:05, 12 July 2024 (UTC) reply

As I said, by Wikipedia policy, it's not up to you to decide what is "correct" or not, only reliable sources can do that. Unless you provide reliable sources that clearly describe it as a "Byzantine victory", there is no reason to add this. R Prazeres ( talk) 17:30, 12 July 2024 (UTC) reply

My last comment is literally a quote from book "THE ROMAN EASTERN FRONTIER AND THE PERSIAN WARS.PART II",the book itself can be considered an authoritative source, since the book is based on a large number of sources of that time and not only Gypsygreek ( talk) 19:19, 12 July 2024 (UTC) reply

I don't see any "quote", but like I said at Talk:Roman–Sasanian War of 421–422, the book you cited is a compilation of primary sources, which are not considered authoritative on Wikipedia. R Prazeres ( talk) 21:33, 12 July 2024 (UTC) reply