The contents of the Byzantine鈥揝asanian wars page were merged into Roman-Persian Wars on 2020-04-17. For the contribution history and old versions of the merged article please see its history. |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Byzantine鈥揝asanian wars redirect. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources:聽 Google ( books聽路 news聽路 scholar聽路 free images聽路 WP聽refs)聽路 FENS聽路 JSTOR聽路 TWL |
This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Its a start that I hope and expect will be modified. In the mean time, I will try to make some maps refelecting the front in the various wars.
I also named the first part of the conflict "Transition war" because its a transition from Roman --> to Byzantine and Parthian --> to Sassanid.
The last war I called a war of exahustion. If there are official labels, we'll use those. They did both exhaust each other.
If the Falklands war was a British victory and it was a counter attack reclaiming what it had, then so was this war in which the Persians failed to take the Eastern Provinces.
Tourskin
04:10, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
As I already explained, teh last war is the one that counts, since its effect is the one decided the outcome - the Sassanids had over-extended themselves, were defeated at Issus and Ninevah and the Byzantine armies reached Ctesiphon, forcing the Sassanids to sue for peace. It was not a stalemate. A true stalemate is when no decisive result can be achieved, yet Ninevah and Issus were decisive victories. Besides, check out the Falklands war, there is great similarity to it here in that the Sassanids tried and failed to occupy Byzantine lands, much as the Argentines tried and failed to occupy British lands. Please discuss before changing. Tourskin 20:53, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
To quote from Britannica:
Khosrow Parv墨z (Persian: 鈥淜hosrow the Victorious鈥) late S膩s膩nian king of Persia (reigned 590鈥628), under whom the empire achieved its greatest expansion. Defeated at last in a war with the Byzantines, he was deposed in a palace revolution and executed.
It appears that the outcome of the Byzantine-Persian war is crystal clear. If the Iranians insist on regarding it an a continuous Roman-Persian war, then this is the sole outcome. Miskin 21:03, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Ok this is just your opinion, which despite how much I respect, it cannot count as a source. If you're not convinced by Britannica then I'll come back with more citations later. Though this really is common knowledge. You're using the same logic that would apply on a football game. Winning a battle is one thing, winning a war is another, and there's a very clear distinction between the two. One battle can be sufficient to judge a war, no matter how many battles were lost beforehand. Miskin 21:28, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Actually Britannica separates the war of Persia againt Rome, and Persia against Byzantium, i.e. the split that you have been opposing. The 8-century continuous conflict view is your unsourced original thought. If you want to accuse me for having a POV then you might as well make the minimum WP:ATT effort and provide a source for your claims. Right now I've got already cited 3 sources and you have cited none, so accusing me for a POV just makes you look silly. Anyway in several articles it is stated that Byzantium defeated the Sassanians, I've only cited one. If you could be more neutral and less patriotic about this topic it's going to be easier for everyone to make contributions. Miskin 21:46, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
For example Britannica's article "Byzantine Empire" states: "Three sources of strength enabled Heraclius to turn defeat into victory"... expands. See also the Iranian sources I provided in Roman-Persian wars. Miskin 22:28, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
In addition, the outcome of the Byzantine-Persian war is reflected in the Battle of Nineveh (627). This is also verified by the Dictionary of Ancient & Medieval Warfare which calls the outcome a "decisive Byzantine victory". A contemporary Greek work written by Procopius, called the Persian War, verifies that the Byzantine-Persian conflict was regarded as a separate war even by its Byzantine contemporaries. You're only pov-pushing by denying those facts with not a single counter-reference. Miskin 22:00, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Why don't look at teh FINAL RESULT. Hitler won the first three years of World war 2. Yet he was crushed.
The Sassanis lost because they were forced to accept Heraclius' terms. Whatabout the Falklands war? Or the Turkish war of independence, was that a draw or a victory? Tourskin 00:24, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
The previous wars were very indecisive. The Persians tried and failed to take the Byzantine lands. Ajerbajani, you are not giving any evidence whatsoever as to why it was a draw. So tell me, why? When clearly:
Counter these points if you care to do so. Tourskin 00:28, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Small mistake there the majority of wars were won by the romans
Azerbaijani please refrain from being personal to other editors. Tourskin made valid points and you have responded with your personal opinion, which is by no means an argument here. I responded to you in Talk:Roman-Persian Wars, there's an abundancy of sources making a distinction between the conflicts. Original thought is not the answer. Miskin 17:43, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Tourskin has proved his knowledge, interest and neutral stance via numerous contributions in medieval warfare. Azarbaijani uses blunt language because he can't accept the mainstream view on the outcome of Byzantine-Sassanian war. I suggest to drop the outcome question at the moment, it is of minor importance. Let's concentrate on the splitting dispute and get back to this later. I've already gathered some citations, I hope Azerbaijani will do the same. Miskin 22:02, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
If the article is disputed, should not the article remain untouched until the dispute is resolved? To that end, it should be restored to how the author (me!) had it in the first place, that is, as a Roman victory. Then after we resolve the dispute, we should change it, if necessary and with some sources and evidence. That means you Ajerbaijani! No offence intended. Tourskin 04:58, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Tourskin, I won't edit the article again until the dispute is settled. Let's leave the winner/loser question of the Byzantine-Persian conflict for later. Let us concentrate on the split for the time being. I made some proposals on the other article. Miskin 17:45, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
I have made quite a bit of edits for just general proofreading. But there is still a load left. This article needs more proofreaders. I'm also going to add to the warbox, it seems rather short.-- Arsenous Commodore 23:31, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Oh yes I forgot to say, the warbox result is rather long. It's just my opinion, but isn't it best to keep it as short as possible. How about just writing. "Re-instatement of pe-war boundaries." I'll make the change, and if no one like it, just reply and change it back. Thanks.-- Arsenous Commodore 23:35, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
You know what, this war has exhausted me. Do with it as anyone will's. Tourskin 04:35, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Does this war have a name in scholarly writing? Or is "Byzantine-Sassanid Wars" a Wikipedian neologism? Srnec 04:33, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
This article discusses about probable raids into Cyrenaica and Nubia after the capture of Egypt by the Sasanians. -- Z 13:44, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
The contents of the Byzantine鈥揝asanian wars page were merged into Roman-Persian Wars on 2020-04-17. For the contribution history and old versions of the merged article please see its history. |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Byzantine鈥揝asanian wars redirect. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources:聽 Google ( books聽路 news聽路 scholar聽路 free images聽路 WP聽refs)聽路 FENS聽路 JSTOR聽路 TWL |
This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Its a start that I hope and expect will be modified. In the mean time, I will try to make some maps refelecting the front in the various wars.
I also named the first part of the conflict "Transition war" because its a transition from Roman --> to Byzantine and Parthian --> to Sassanid.
The last war I called a war of exahustion. If there are official labels, we'll use those. They did both exhaust each other.
If the Falklands war was a British victory and it was a counter attack reclaiming what it had, then so was this war in which the Persians failed to take the Eastern Provinces.
Tourskin
04:10, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
As I already explained, teh last war is the one that counts, since its effect is the one decided the outcome - the Sassanids had over-extended themselves, were defeated at Issus and Ninevah and the Byzantine armies reached Ctesiphon, forcing the Sassanids to sue for peace. It was not a stalemate. A true stalemate is when no decisive result can be achieved, yet Ninevah and Issus were decisive victories. Besides, check out the Falklands war, there is great similarity to it here in that the Sassanids tried and failed to occupy Byzantine lands, much as the Argentines tried and failed to occupy British lands. Please discuss before changing. Tourskin 20:53, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
To quote from Britannica:
Khosrow Parv墨z (Persian: 鈥淜hosrow the Victorious鈥) late S膩s膩nian king of Persia (reigned 590鈥628), under whom the empire achieved its greatest expansion. Defeated at last in a war with the Byzantines, he was deposed in a palace revolution and executed.
It appears that the outcome of the Byzantine-Persian war is crystal clear. If the Iranians insist on regarding it an a continuous Roman-Persian war, then this is the sole outcome. Miskin 21:03, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Ok this is just your opinion, which despite how much I respect, it cannot count as a source. If you're not convinced by Britannica then I'll come back with more citations later. Though this really is common knowledge. You're using the same logic that would apply on a football game. Winning a battle is one thing, winning a war is another, and there's a very clear distinction between the two. One battle can be sufficient to judge a war, no matter how many battles were lost beforehand. Miskin 21:28, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Actually Britannica separates the war of Persia againt Rome, and Persia against Byzantium, i.e. the split that you have been opposing. The 8-century continuous conflict view is your unsourced original thought. If you want to accuse me for having a POV then you might as well make the minimum WP:ATT effort and provide a source for your claims. Right now I've got already cited 3 sources and you have cited none, so accusing me for a POV just makes you look silly. Anyway in several articles it is stated that Byzantium defeated the Sassanians, I've only cited one. If you could be more neutral and less patriotic about this topic it's going to be easier for everyone to make contributions. Miskin 21:46, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
For example Britannica's article "Byzantine Empire" states: "Three sources of strength enabled Heraclius to turn defeat into victory"... expands. See also the Iranian sources I provided in Roman-Persian wars. Miskin 22:28, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
In addition, the outcome of the Byzantine-Persian war is reflected in the Battle of Nineveh (627). This is also verified by the Dictionary of Ancient & Medieval Warfare which calls the outcome a "decisive Byzantine victory". A contemporary Greek work written by Procopius, called the Persian War, verifies that the Byzantine-Persian conflict was regarded as a separate war even by its Byzantine contemporaries. You're only pov-pushing by denying those facts with not a single counter-reference. Miskin 22:00, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Why don't look at teh FINAL RESULT. Hitler won the first three years of World war 2. Yet he was crushed.
The Sassanis lost because they were forced to accept Heraclius' terms. Whatabout the Falklands war? Or the Turkish war of independence, was that a draw or a victory? Tourskin 00:24, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
The previous wars were very indecisive. The Persians tried and failed to take the Byzantine lands. Ajerbajani, you are not giving any evidence whatsoever as to why it was a draw. So tell me, why? When clearly:
Counter these points if you care to do so. Tourskin 00:28, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Small mistake there the majority of wars were won by the romans
Azerbaijani please refrain from being personal to other editors. Tourskin made valid points and you have responded with your personal opinion, which is by no means an argument here. I responded to you in Talk:Roman-Persian Wars, there's an abundancy of sources making a distinction between the conflicts. Original thought is not the answer. Miskin 17:43, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Tourskin has proved his knowledge, interest and neutral stance via numerous contributions in medieval warfare. Azarbaijani uses blunt language because he can't accept the mainstream view on the outcome of Byzantine-Sassanian war. I suggest to drop the outcome question at the moment, it is of minor importance. Let's concentrate on the splitting dispute and get back to this later. I've already gathered some citations, I hope Azerbaijani will do the same. Miskin 22:02, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
If the article is disputed, should not the article remain untouched until the dispute is resolved? To that end, it should be restored to how the author (me!) had it in the first place, that is, as a Roman victory. Then after we resolve the dispute, we should change it, if necessary and with some sources and evidence. That means you Ajerbaijani! No offence intended. Tourskin 04:58, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Tourskin, I won't edit the article again until the dispute is settled. Let's leave the winner/loser question of the Byzantine-Persian conflict for later. Let us concentrate on the split for the time being. I made some proposals on the other article. Miskin 17:45, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
I have made quite a bit of edits for just general proofreading. But there is still a load left. This article needs more proofreaders. I'm also going to add to the warbox, it seems rather short.-- Arsenous Commodore 23:31, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Oh yes I forgot to say, the warbox result is rather long. It's just my opinion, but isn't it best to keep it as short as possible. How about just writing. "Re-instatement of pe-war boundaries." I'll make the change, and if no one like it, just reply and change it back. Thanks.-- Arsenous Commodore 23:35, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
You know what, this war has exhausted me. Do with it as anyone will's. Tourskin 04:35, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Does this war have a name in scholarly writing? Or is "Byzantine-Sassanid Wars" a Wikipedian neologism? Srnec 04:33, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
This article discusses about probable raids into Cyrenaica and Nubia after the capture of Egypt by the Sasanians. -- Z 13:44, 14 September 2018 (UTC)