This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
Hello I made some changes and expanded the results of your article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MadeByGod ( talk • contribs) 06:20, 6 April 2010 (UTC) The point of the territorial changes section of the data box is to record how the territorial position after the conflict was different from the position before. Of course, this would normally be applied to a single war rather than several centuries' worth of them, but the principle is the same. This section is there to record how the situation after the last war between the Roman Empire and the Sassanids differed from the situation before the first war between the Roman Republic and the Parthians. Zburh ( talk) 01:18, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Question: where this image should be located? Historiography at the end? I think that would be unfair. Why not in the section "Early Roman–Sassanid conflicts". The image should be relocated.-- Xashaiar ( talk) 14:28, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
In the section on the Battle of Carrhae, the article notes that Marcus Licinius Crassus died along with his son, Publius; however, the link led to Publius Licinius Crassus, the consul of 171 BC. Since the battle took place in 53 BC, and since Marcus Crassus himself wasn't born till around 115 BC, and since an FA is supposed to be a model article, and since it's a history article, this otherwise small error struck me as fairly credibility-undermining. There are at least two disambiguation pages devoted to sorting out the Publii Crassi: Publius Licinius Crassus (disambiguation) and Publius Crassus. The article actually titled Publius Licinius Crassus (son of triumvir) is quite a lengthy treatment of the subject, with a detailed account of the battle from the perspective of Publius's men and discussion of background to the war. Cynwolfe ( talk) 13:10, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
Someone posted a sentence in the article stating that the map that shows the greatest extent of the Sassanid Empire, dated c. 610, should instead be dated c. 620. I removed the sentence because it didn't belong in the article, but don't know whether or not the person who put that there was right. Ucucha 13:11, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
Although mainly inactive during the last months, I am thrilled to see the article in Wikipedia's main page. Who made the petition for first page publication? It was Constantine? Anyway ... Cons guys! It was a nice surprise which made my day, and reminded me the "old" days, when me and other users were working on this article to bring it to GA and FA status. And, inevitably, when there is collective work, there are frictions and disagreements. I remember how furious I was, when Sept submitted a FAR (grrrrrrr!), but now, watching from a distance, I see everything with a different eye, and I understand that the common denominator of everybody's actions was the achievement of a higher quality for the article. Unfortunately, sometimes there were misunderstandings.
Just a minor remarks: Have the rules in WP changes or this long list of external links within "Primary Sources" should go?-- Yannismarou ( talk) 14:13, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
The page refers to Iranian Empires, and Wars between Roman and Iranians. This is totally irresponsible and sloppy. The Romans never fought Iranians. There were no Iranian empires. The Romans fought Persians and the empires were Persian. The word Iran goes back a long way into history as excellent pages in Wikipedia point out, but it describes the people, or the land, but not the empire. The Romans like the Greeks before them knew their enemy as Persis, Perses, or Persica. They fought Persians.
When the Mongols invaded Kievan Rus in 1237, they did not fight the "Soviet Union" or the "Russian Republic" which is how the place was known for most of the 20th century and is known today. They invaded and fought against whatever THEY called those people!
It is at best ambiguous, at worst historically inaccurate to describe the Sassanian as an Iranian Empire. They were Persians, particularly where their Greco-Roman enemies were concerned. Mardak63 ( talk) 16:04, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
Beside, the term Persian is in fact wrong when applied to ancient history. Therefore the change "Persian->Iranian" is not only following scholarly works, but also a correction. Xashaiar ( talk) 22:58, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
In the maps During Justinian Reign and Roman and Persian Empires in 477, two political entities so-named Basken and Vaconia appear taking up a considerable extension of the North of the Iberian Peninsula.
This is largely unaccurate, because:
1. There was not such political entities ever. To the most, one can think that for some decades the cantabrian and basque (and not just basque) territories were to some extent outside the reach of the effective authority of the Kingdoms or Empires ruling most of the Peninsula. But this should not allow to confer them definite borders and an explicit political entity.
2. At any rate, to bring the western "border" of these territories to the centre of present Asturias is a huge mistake.
Excellent article, otherwise.
Buron444 ( talk) 16:47, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
The infobox seems to be rather overloaded with links to articles about commanders. This should really be cut down or moved into the article itself, especially since something like a third are redlinks. Please keep in mind that infoboxes are supposed to be brief summaries.
Otherwise a nice and informative article. Good job, everyone.
Peter Isotalo 20:38, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
I suggest the title of the article be changed to Roman-Iranian wars since the sassanid realm was known as "Iranshahr" ,Not "persian empire" or anything else alike. I assume the parthians didnt consider themselves "persian" either. 78.39.92.21 ( talk) 10:10, 13 February 2010 (UTC)Goshtasp
700+ years of war that dominated most of the known world for so long, and not a nice picture in the infobox? This article is a FA article too, it would be really nice if someone could add a fitting image. - LouisAragon ( talk) 15:01, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
In response to this "IP's" accusations of "Islamophoby" [1], and "anti-Arabism", [2] as well as using a false edit summary to push for an agenda, I highly advise him to raise his concerns properly here. Having said that, his additional hilarious threat and blatant misinterpretation of WP policies due to, unfortunately, the sheer lack of knowledge, [3], and the multiple blocks and warnings given to him, [4] furthermore strengthen our concerns that this user is merely here to bring disruption. - LouisAragon ( talk) 07:42, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
Is there any report of mass deportation (not enslavement) of people by the Romans? Z 20:27, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
@ ZxxZxxZ:, referring to this edit. I totally get what you mean, but I don't think that argument alone (in your edit summary) suffices to remove all that text. While this article indeed is called "Roman-Persian Wars", I believe the single largest "direct" and lasting consequence it had, is that it opened the way for the Arabs. This is something that can not be overlooked. Particularly, for example, changing;
"The expense of resources during the Roman–Persian Wars ultimately proved catastrophic for both empires. The prolonged and escalating warfare of the 6th and 7th centuries left them exhausted and vulnerable in the face of the sudden emergence and expansion of the
Caliphate, whose forces invaded both empires only a few years after the end of the last Roman–Persian war."
to
"The climactic war of the 6th and 7th centuries eventually left both empires exhausted and vulnerable in the face of the sudden emergence and
expansion of the Arab Muslims, who swiftly conquered the entire Sassanid Empire and most of the Eastern Roman Empire."
...belittles the whole mater a tad too much imo. The same goes for the removal of the part "Benefitting from their weakened (...) rest of North Africa". After all, these were the regions that the Sasanians and Roman-Byzantines fought over in this period that lasted some ~ 700 years. Hence I believe its quite important to be mentioned. All the best, -
LouisAragon (
talk) 03:22, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
Pinging User:LouisAragon Z 18:50, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 9 external links on Roman–Persian Wars. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 17:12, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 7 external links on Roman–Persian Wars. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
https://books.google.com/?id=p7kltwf9yrwC&dq=Lazica,+545{{
dead link}}
tag to
https://books.google.com/?id=aQspOf291_cC&dq=Theodore,+ShahinWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 05:20, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
I think only the ones that are actually mentioned in this article should be listed here. -- Z 11:26, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
I changed my mind, I think the solution to keep the list short enough to be actually useful is to list the leaders only but not aany commander. I propose this new infobox:
Roman–Persian Wars | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
| |||||
Belligerents | |||||
Roman Republic, succeeded by Roman Empire and Eastern Roman Empire later |
Parthian Empire, succeeded by Sasanian Empire | ||||
Commanders and leaders | |||||
Crassus
†, Mark Antony, Trajan, Lucius Verus, Septimius Severus, Caracalla, Macrinus, Severus Alexander, Gordian III †, Valerian ( POW), Ballista, Odaenathus, Carus, Galerius, Constantius II, Julian †, Jovian, Al-Harith ibn Jabalah, Justinian, Al-Mundhir ibn al-Harith, Maurice, Phocas, Heraclius |
Orodes II, Quintus Labienus , Artabanus III, Vologases I, Osroes I, Mithridates IV †, Sinatruces II, Vologases IV, Ardashir I, Shapur I, Narseh, Shapur II, Bahram V, Yazdegerd II, Kavadh I, Khosrau I, Al-Mundhir IV ibn al-Mundhir Bahram Chobin, Khosrau II |
I've added Mithridates IV, and removed all commanders. I also removed "KIA" for Carus (who died of natural causes) and Khosrau II (who was assassinated by the Persians). Quintus Labienus, Odaenathus, Al-Harith ibn Jabalah, Al-Mundhir ibn al-Harith, Al-Mundhir IV ibn al-Mundhir, should be probably listed separately under "Clients/allies", similar to the "Belligerents" section. Other names that could be added there include Parthamaspates of Parthia, Grumbates, Jabalah IV ibn al-Harith †, Gubazes II of Lazica, Tong Yabghu Qaghan, Benjamin of Tiberias -- Z 13:10, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
Roman–Persian Wars | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
| |||||
Belligerents | |||||
Roman Republic, succeeded by Roman Empire and Eastern Roman Empire later |
Parthian Empire, succeeded by Sasanian Empire | ||||
Commanders and leaders | |||||
Clients/allies
|
Clients/allies
|
The section "Commanders and leaders" in the infobox is too long to be useful, and there is no defined criteria to for inclusion. To solve this, two new lists "Clients/allies" were added to each column, moving the client leaders there, and removing all generals, keeping only the main leaders of the wars. Several client leaders were missing, I added them to these new lists. -- Z 14:16, 5 October 2018 (UTC) I also added Himyar to the list of the Persian allies, since we already have the Aksumites in the list of the Roman allies. -- Z 14:19, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
I propose merging Byzantine–Sasanian wars into this page because of the considerable overlap between the pages. In general, I support Wikipedia using the term Byzantine for the name of the Empire from at least the fall of the West in 476 in line with general historiographical usage, and in other places I've edited pages in accordance with this style [6] [7] [8]. However, as this page already covers the Byzantine period, it can be unhelpful for readers for the two pages to end up developing separately. Even as we acknowledge the separateness of the classical Roman and Byzantine periods, there was an obvious continuity between them, and war and diplomacy in the East was one such area. The fall of the Empire in the West doesn't mark a significant time as such in the history of Roman/Byzantine–Persian/Sasanian relations; not that it didn't have an impact, but it was one of many factors over the course of of centuries. I'd argue that this is one area that it makes sense to address on Wikipedia as a single topic, linking in the various paragraphs to the various wars and battles within. The page Byzantine–Sasanian wars even begins with many contextual elements from the pre-Byzantine period. — Iveagh Gardens ( talk) 09:52, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
♦ So, since support for this merge is basically universal, how can we proceed to the merge itself? GPinkerton ( talk) 22:38, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
Hello I made some changes and expanded the results of your article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MadeByGod ( talk • contribs) 06:20, 6 April 2010 (UTC) The point of the territorial changes section of the data box is to record how the territorial position after the conflict was different from the position before. Of course, this would normally be applied to a single war rather than several centuries' worth of them, but the principle is the same. This section is there to record how the situation after the last war between the Roman Empire and the Sassanids differed from the situation before the first war between the Roman Republic and the Parthians. Zburh ( talk) 01:18, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Question: where this image should be located? Historiography at the end? I think that would be unfair. Why not in the section "Early Roman–Sassanid conflicts". The image should be relocated.-- Xashaiar ( talk) 14:28, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
In the section on the Battle of Carrhae, the article notes that Marcus Licinius Crassus died along with his son, Publius; however, the link led to Publius Licinius Crassus, the consul of 171 BC. Since the battle took place in 53 BC, and since Marcus Crassus himself wasn't born till around 115 BC, and since an FA is supposed to be a model article, and since it's a history article, this otherwise small error struck me as fairly credibility-undermining. There are at least two disambiguation pages devoted to sorting out the Publii Crassi: Publius Licinius Crassus (disambiguation) and Publius Crassus. The article actually titled Publius Licinius Crassus (son of triumvir) is quite a lengthy treatment of the subject, with a detailed account of the battle from the perspective of Publius's men and discussion of background to the war. Cynwolfe ( talk) 13:10, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
Someone posted a sentence in the article stating that the map that shows the greatest extent of the Sassanid Empire, dated c. 610, should instead be dated c. 620. I removed the sentence because it didn't belong in the article, but don't know whether or not the person who put that there was right. Ucucha 13:11, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
Although mainly inactive during the last months, I am thrilled to see the article in Wikipedia's main page. Who made the petition for first page publication? It was Constantine? Anyway ... Cons guys! It was a nice surprise which made my day, and reminded me the "old" days, when me and other users were working on this article to bring it to GA and FA status. And, inevitably, when there is collective work, there are frictions and disagreements. I remember how furious I was, when Sept submitted a FAR (grrrrrrr!), but now, watching from a distance, I see everything with a different eye, and I understand that the common denominator of everybody's actions was the achievement of a higher quality for the article. Unfortunately, sometimes there were misunderstandings.
Just a minor remarks: Have the rules in WP changes or this long list of external links within "Primary Sources" should go?-- Yannismarou ( talk) 14:13, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
The page refers to Iranian Empires, and Wars between Roman and Iranians. This is totally irresponsible and sloppy. The Romans never fought Iranians. There were no Iranian empires. The Romans fought Persians and the empires were Persian. The word Iran goes back a long way into history as excellent pages in Wikipedia point out, but it describes the people, or the land, but not the empire. The Romans like the Greeks before them knew their enemy as Persis, Perses, or Persica. They fought Persians.
When the Mongols invaded Kievan Rus in 1237, they did not fight the "Soviet Union" or the "Russian Republic" which is how the place was known for most of the 20th century and is known today. They invaded and fought against whatever THEY called those people!
It is at best ambiguous, at worst historically inaccurate to describe the Sassanian as an Iranian Empire. They were Persians, particularly where their Greco-Roman enemies were concerned. Mardak63 ( talk) 16:04, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
Beside, the term Persian is in fact wrong when applied to ancient history. Therefore the change "Persian->Iranian" is not only following scholarly works, but also a correction. Xashaiar ( talk) 22:58, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
In the maps During Justinian Reign and Roman and Persian Empires in 477, two political entities so-named Basken and Vaconia appear taking up a considerable extension of the North of the Iberian Peninsula.
This is largely unaccurate, because:
1. There was not such political entities ever. To the most, one can think that for some decades the cantabrian and basque (and not just basque) territories were to some extent outside the reach of the effective authority of the Kingdoms or Empires ruling most of the Peninsula. But this should not allow to confer them definite borders and an explicit political entity.
2. At any rate, to bring the western "border" of these territories to the centre of present Asturias is a huge mistake.
Excellent article, otherwise.
Buron444 ( talk) 16:47, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
The infobox seems to be rather overloaded with links to articles about commanders. This should really be cut down or moved into the article itself, especially since something like a third are redlinks. Please keep in mind that infoboxes are supposed to be brief summaries.
Otherwise a nice and informative article. Good job, everyone.
Peter Isotalo 20:38, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
I suggest the title of the article be changed to Roman-Iranian wars since the sassanid realm was known as "Iranshahr" ,Not "persian empire" or anything else alike. I assume the parthians didnt consider themselves "persian" either. 78.39.92.21 ( talk) 10:10, 13 February 2010 (UTC)Goshtasp
700+ years of war that dominated most of the known world for so long, and not a nice picture in the infobox? This article is a FA article too, it would be really nice if someone could add a fitting image. - LouisAragon ( talk) 15:01, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
In response to this "IP's" accusations of "Islamophoby" [1], and "anti-Arabism", [2] as well as using a false edit summary to push for an agenda, I highly advise him to raise his concerns properly here. Having said that, his additional hilarious threat and blatant misinterpretation of WP policies due to, unfortunately, the sheer lack of knowledge, [3], and the multiple blocks and warnings given to him, [4] furthermore strengthen our concerns that this user is merely here to bring disruption. - LouisAragon ( talk) 07:42, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
Is there any report of mass deportation (not enslavement) of people by the Romans? Z 20:27, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
@ ZxxZxxZ:, referring to this edit. I totally get what you mean, but I don't think that argument alone (in your edit summary) suffices to remove all that text. While this article indeed is called "Roman-Persian Wars", I believe the single largest "direct" and lasting consequence it had, is that it opened the way for the Arabs. This is something that can not be overlooked. Particularly, for example, changing;
"The expense of resources during the Roman–Persian Wars ultimately proved catastrophic for both empires. The prolonged and escalating warfare of the 6th and 7th centuries left them exhausted and vulnerable in the face of the sudden emergence and expansion of the
Caliphate, whose forces invaded both empires only a few years after the end of the last Roman–Persian war."
to
"The climactic war of the 6th and 7th centuries eventually left both empires exhausted and vulnerable in the face of the sudden emergence and
expansion of the Arab Muslims, who swiftly conquered the entire Sassanid Empire and most of the Eastern Roman Empire."
...belittles the whole mater a tad too much imo. The same goes for the removal of the part "Benefitting from their weakened (...) rest of North Africa". After all, these were the regions that the Sasanians and Roman-Byzantines fought over in this period that lasted some ~ 700 years. Hence I believe its quite important to be mentioned. All the best, -
LouisAragon (
talk) 03:22, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
Pinging User:LouisAragon Z 18:50, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 9 external links on Roman–Persian Wars. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 17:12, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 7 external links on Roman–Persian Wars. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
https://books.google.com/?id=p7kltwf9yrwC&dq=Lazica,+545{{
dead link}}
tag to
https://books.google.com/?id=aQspOf291_cC&dq=Theodore,+ShahinWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 05:20, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
I think only the ones that are actually mentioned in this article should be listed here. -- Z 11:26, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
I changed my mind, I think the solution to keep the list short enough to be actually useful is to list the leaders only but not aany commander. I propose this new infobox:
Roman–Persian Wars | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
| |||||
Belligerents | |||||
Roman Republic, succeeded by Roman Empire and Eastern Roman Empire later |
Parthian Empire, succeeded by Sasanian Empire | ||||
Commanders and leaders | |||||
Crassus
†, Mark Antony, Trajan, Lucius Verus, Septimius Severus, Caracalla, Macrinus, Severus Alexander, Gordian III †, Valerian ( POW), Ballista, Odaenathus, Carus, Galerius, Constantius II, Julian †, Jovian, Al-Harith ibn Jabalah, Justinian, Al-Mundhir ibn al-Harith, Maurice, Phocas, Heraclius |
Orodes II, Quintus Labienus , Artabanus III, Vologases I, Osroes I, Mithridates IV †, Sinatruces II, Vologases IV, Ardashir I, Shapur I, Narseh, Shapur II, Bahram V, Yazdegerd II, Kavadh I, Khosrau I, Al-Mundhir IV ibn al-Mundhir Bahram Chobin, Khosrau II |
I've added Mithridates IV, and removed all commanders. I also removed "KIA" for Carus (who died of natural causes) and Khosrau II (who was assassinated by the Persians). Quintus Labienus, Odaenathus, Al-Harith ibn Jabalah, Al-Mundhir ibn al-Harith, Al-Mundhir IV ibn al-Mundhir, should be probably listed separately under "Clients/allies", similar to the "Belligerents" section. Other names that could be added there include Parthamaspates of Parthia, Grumbates, Jabalah IV ibn al-Harith †, Gubazes II of Lazica, Tong Yabghu Qaghan, Benjamin of Tiberias -- Z 13:10, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
Roman–Persian Wars | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
| |||||
Belligerents | |||||
Roman Republic, succeeded by Roman Empire and Eastern Roman Empire later |
Parthian Empire, succeeded by Sasanian Empire | ||||
Commanders and leaders | |||||
Clients/allies
|
Clients/allies
|
The section "Commanders and leaders" in the infobox is too long to be useful, and there is no defined criteria to for inclusion. To solve this, two new lists "Clients/allies" were added to each column, moving the client leaders there, and removing all generals, keeping only the main leaders of the wars. Several client leaders were missing, I added them to these new lists. -- Z 14:16, 5 October 2018 (UTC) I also added Himyar to the list of the Persian allies, since we already have the Aksumites in the list of the Roman allies. -- Z 14:19, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
I propose merging Byzantine–Sasanian wars into this page because of the considerable overlap between the pages. In general, I support Wikipedia using the term Byzantine for the name of the Empire from at least the fall of the West in 476 in line with general historiographical usage, and in other places I've edited pages in accordance with this style [6] [7] [8]. However, as this page already covers the Byzantine period, it can be unhelpful for readers for the two pages to end up developing separately. Even as we acknowledge the separateness of the classical Roman and Byzantine periods, there was an obvious continuity between them, and war and diplomacy in the East was one such area. The fall of the Empire in the West doesn't mark a significant time as such in the history of Roman/Byzantine–Persian/Sasanian relations; not that it didn't have an impact, but it was one of many factors over the course of of centuries. I'd argue that this is one area that it makes sense to address on Wikipedia as a single topic, linking in the various paragraphs to the various wars and battles within. The page Byzantine–Sasanian wars even begins with many contextual elements from the pre-Byzantine period. — Iveagh Gardens ( talk) 09:52, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
♦ So, since support for this merge is basically universal, how can we proceed to the merge itself? GPinkerton ( talk) 22:38, 16 April 2020 (UTC)