This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Byzantine–Sasanian War of 602–628 article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Byzantine–Sasanian War of 602–628 has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This Â
level-5 vital article is rated A-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This is mostly directed at User:Cplakidas. Seeing as we mostly know about the Western Turkic Khaganate involvement in this war through Byzantine sources, shouldn't we use the name that shows up in Byzantine sources for them? It seems that it is only a (albeit very prevalent) modern interpretation to connect the Khazars of the Byzantine sources with the Western Turkic Khaganate. So my question is: Why should we call them the Western Turkic Khaganate when in the sources for this war, they are called Khazars? I hope you or someone else can respond to this question. DemonicInfluence ( talk) 13:14, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
It currently states that "The war was originally begun by the great Sassanian king Khosrau II to avenge the death of Emperor Maurice"
This statement makes no sense. Side A starts a war to "avenge the death" of someone who was from side A, not to avenge the death of someone from side B ( the opponents). Eregli bob ( talk) 11:20, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
User:Cplakidas, can you tell me a source where the creation of Themes by Heraclius has been disproved? I want to know just for accuracy. DemonicInfluence ( talk) 16:12, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Reviewer: MinisterForBadTimes ( talk) 11:08, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
OK, I have started my review by going through the article and making revisions which I believe improve the article, and which are easier for me to do myself than to explain!
The major things I have done are:
More review to follow! MinisterForBadTimes ( talk) 16:32, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
OK more review points, in no particular order:
I think that's it for now. I still need to check the LEAD more carefully, but I don't foresee too many problems. Overall, I thought that this was an excellent article, well-written, well-presented and especially well-referenced. It was also a conflict I knew next-to-nothing about, and a pleasure to read about, as a good Wikipedia article should be! If the above points are addressed, I don't see that there will be any problems in passing the article for GA.
Regards, MinisterForBadTimes ( talk) 21:31, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
this article is very good. I have some prose issues that I'd like to bring up which may help clarify the text (and presumably help prepare for FAC).
The Byzantine-Sassanid War of 602–628 was the final and most devastating of the series of wars fought between the Byzantine Empire and the Sassanid Empire. The previous war had ended after Emperor Maurice had helped the Sassanian king Khosrau II regain his throne. When Maurice was murdered by the usurper Phocas, Khosrau declared war, ostensibly to avenge his benefactor's death. The decades-long conflict was fought in Egypt, the Levant, Mesopotamia, Anatolia, and even before the walls of Constantinople itself. While the Persians proved largely successful during the first stages of the war, conquering much of the Levant, Egypt, and even parts of Anatolia, the ascendancy of Heraclius eventually led to the Persians' demise. Heraclius' campaigns altered the balance, forcing the Persians on the defensive and allowing for the Byzantines to regain momentum. Allied with the Avars, the Persians attempted to take Constantinople, but were defeated there. Heraclius then invaded the Persian heartland, forcing the Persians to sue for peace.
The previous war ended in ---- after the Byzantine Emperor Maurice helped the Sassanian king, Khosrau II, regain his throne. In 602, Phocas, a political rival of Maurice, murdered the Emperor (usurper is such a npov word) and claimed the throne. Khosrau declared war on the Byzantine empire, ostensibly to avenge his benefactor's death.The combatants fought the decades-long conflict, the longest single war of the series, throughout much of the Middle East and parts of Eastern Europe: in Egypt, the Levant, Mesopotamia, Anatolia, and even before the walls of Constantinople itself.
The war had four phases. During the first (602-?), the Persians successfully conquered much of the Levant, Egypt, and even parts of Anatolia. In the second phase, Heraclius, the new Byzantine emperor, forced the Persians out of *****. In the third, the Persians had allied with the Avars, and together they attempted to take Constantinople; Heraclius defeated them there, and, in the fourth phase, invaded the Persian heartland, forcing them to sue for peace.
Or something. In a war this long, it is important to divide it into chunks that the reader can grasp. chunk one, Persian dominance, chunk 2, Heraclius, a new emperor (kills the previous one), has some successes doing X (not the demise of the Persians, please: he didn't kill them all!) Chunk 3, the battle at Constantinople; chunk 4, nail in the heart of Persia.
make sense? Auntieruth55 ( talk) 01:59, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
General
Specifics
Ouch. When we dig, it appears that practically every map regarding this topic should be subject to a RfD.
Happily, it appears that I had been taught an over-restrictive interpretation of image copyright. When I was working at the Graphics Lab, User: Lokal Profil was the resident copyright 'moderator' and his interpretation of copyright policy was that a derivative of an image with a given copyright is under the same copyright. This would imply that single-source maps (like some floating around here) are copyvios. However, a swing past the copyright queries page unearthed the following, that explains the acceptability of the license terms of your FP (that has obviously been subjected to serious scrutiny).
"...if you traced or copied, or closely copied an existing photograph, then your drawing may still be a "derivative work", and thus you wouldn't own the copyright. But if this is a drawing from life, or something where you used a number of different photographic references (or you took the photo yourself), then ignore that first part. Creative works that are entirely your own can be licensed however you choose..."
The important part is "if ... you used a number of different photographic references [then you own the copyright]". I was under the impression that an image inherited the most restrictive of the license terms of the images used in its construction. However, a composite from many sources appears to be acceptable as 'own work' in the sense that you are 'quoting' from multiple sources, not plagiarising any one of them. That is both intuitively reasonable (I previously though image copyright was bizarrely draconian) and a huge relief. I apologise for creating confusion and I gather that drawing on multiple sources to make a composite map is not only a good idea, but a copyright imperative. I will hunt around, but can anyone recommend sources for the locations of other contemporary cities and the extent of the Persian Empire? Dhatfield ( talk) 21:29, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
I didn't say it during the peer review, but this seems easily FAC-worthy to me. - Dank ( push to talk) 20:57, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
This article does not make clear when and how the Byzantines regained cities in Syria and Anatolia such as Antioch, Caeserea. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.239.120.194 ( talk) 09:32, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
Oman (1893) is an rather outdated source that ideally should be removed completely. For now I just removed it from the 622 campaign where it clearly contains false information.-- Kmhkmh ( talk) 14:27, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
The sources for this are insufficient. Davies cites Oman, and Oman cites nothing. Additionally, Oman is over a century old. The letter itself can be found in Pseudo-Sebeos, pp. 79-80, (trans. Thomson, Liverpool University Press, 2000.) The translation is also slightly but not significantly different, so perhaps an updated quote is needed. The article here also states that Khusro sent the letter to Heraclius. That's possible, but Sebeos' letter is filled with Biblical allusions (as the notes in the Thomson translation point out) and Herakleios' use of the letter speaks more of a propaganda stunt than a real letter. Notably, see Howard-Johnston's commentary in the second volume of the Sebeos set, p. 214: "While there is no reason to reject either item, one may legitimately ask whether the diplomatic note was an authentic Persian document, since it was so eagerly publicized by Heraclius and its phrasing was well calculated to heighten anti-Persian sentiment. It is more plausible to view it as a successful piece of Roman disinformation, designed to bring about the effect it achieved: insults thrown at Heraclius (senseless, insignificant, leader of brigands) were gratuitous and likely to be counter-productive; anti-Christian invective came ill from a ruler who now governed most of the east Christian world; and Old Testament citations, from Isaiah and the Psalms, would seem to betray a Christian hand at work in the drafting."
Why is this page being moved to "Sassanid" when the Sassanid Empire page was recently moved to "Sasanian" Empire, after much discussion? If there is a logic to the move, please explain here, where the issue of consistency among articles has already been raised and further comment is sought. Laszlo Panaflex ( talk) 18:04, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
I think that one goals of this articles is to justify the future Byzantine and Persian defeats by Muslim forces, and demean the Muslim victories, the article mentioned the regret of some historian who said that that "unnecessarily prolonged Byzantine–Persian conflict opened the way for Islam"!!! It's to be mentioned that:
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Byzantine–Sasanian War of 602–628. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
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) 15:30, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
This source (page 33) mentions successful attack "on Cyprus (around 619)" by Sassanid seaborne forces. -- Z 16:34, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
The text of a letter supposedly from Khosrow to Heraclius is mentioned at Byzantine–Sasanian_War_of_602–628#Egypt. It must be attributed to him by Roman sources, and I think we should name the source(s) after "— Khosrau II". -- Z 12:17, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
What's the rationale for this? Neither side gained any territory or influence. So wouldn't it be a Status quo ante bellum? Koopinator ( talk) 10:16, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
Cplakidas, Here is a reliable source stating that Sassanian armies conquered Asia Minor, therefore, please stop removing "medievaal Anatolia".
http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/byzantine-iranian-relations
I quote : "In 610 Heraclius (d. 641) overthrew Phocas and sought peace once again, but Ḵosrow refused. His armies continued their march in two directions: Å ahrÂvarÄz took Antioch, Apamea, Caesarea, Mazaca, DaÂmascus, Jerusalem (whence he sent the “true cross†to Persia), and, in 616, Egypt. Å ÄhÄ“n conquered the whole of Asia Minor, entered Chalcedon after a short siege, and encamped within a mile of Constantinople itself, in the expectation that his Avar allies would descend from the Balkans and take the city"
Thanks. Best regards.--- Wikaviani ( talk) 20:42, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
"I respect source-based arguments, but if you want to argue something, you need to have knowledge of details, not just generic overviews that necessarily simplify matters."Â : As i said, i spent many sleepless nights reading historical works about the history of Persia, so that, modestly, i think i know this quite well. Thank you for the source, however, while i took the time to read it carefully, i see no evidence that Byzantine forces where fully ruling Anatolia at that time. More, sources seem not unanimous. While the Foss source speaks of several raids deep into asia Minor, Iranica and Oxford handbook of Iranian history (also a reliable source for this topic) rather say there was a Persian conquest of Anatolia. The fact that Pesian forces focused on the richer southern provinces of the Byzantine Empire is not in contradiction with the conquest of Anatolia, this would be a clear case of OR to take the statement "they focused on the southern provinces" as a source to support a supposed failed attempt to conquer Anatolia. Anyway, i think that leaving "Medieval Anatolia" is better than "Byzantine Anatolia" which is misleading and makes the reader think that Byzantine empire continuously ruled that area at that time while this is not true (even according to Foss). However, since LouisAragon is actually siding with your version (third party opinion), then i have no other choice but to drop the stick even if this version is, according to me and several reliable sources, wrong. Best regards.--- Wikaviani ( talk) 16:52, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
It seems some users are trying to portray this conflict as "a draw" on the basis that the Sasanid Empire retained its borders in the end.... The argument that "nobody won because frontiers were returned to the Statu Quo Ante" is a bit like arguing that Japan and Germany did not loose World War II because they essentially retained their frontiers in the end: it is not a proper interpretation of what happened and of the fact that these two countries were utterly defeated.
Such views are inapropriately minimizing the Byzantine success in this war. Beate Dignas in "Rome and Persia in Late Antiquity: Neighbours and Rivals" is quite specific that this was a Byzantine victory (although certainly a difficult and costly, but certainly not marginal, one):
So Heraclius vanquished Xusro/Khosrow (not just "won a battle"), and Khosrow's successor Kavad sued for peace: I don't know a better definition of victory.... As if it weren't clear enough, Beate Dignas also sums up the conflict in unambiguous terms at the end of his chapter:
He also mentions that Heraclius did not want to overly weaken the Sasanian Empire in note 157 p.150:
Let's respect the sources and state correctly that the Byzantine prevailed in the end. In my opinion, "the Byzantines prevailed" might be enough and softer than "Byzantine victory", especially since it was actually a Pyrrhic victory for the Byzantine Empire, although "Byzantine victory" might be more accurate and more standard. This result should be shown in the "Result" area of the Infobox, rather than just "Statu Quo Ante Bellum" [1] as I found it initially and which is highly misleading, or even "Persian invasion of the Byzantine Empire repelled" as it is at the time of this post and which denies the Byzantine successful and very destructive (arguably lethal) counter-offensive into the heartland of the Sasanian Empire [2]. My proposal for the "Result" section of the Infobox is this: [3]. पाटलिपà¥à¤¤à¥à¤° ( talk) 19:27, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
"It has already been shown how the legal status of Germany changed in several ways after the unconditional surrender to the Allies in 1945, from being an occupied country to the period of division and eventual unification. (...) Germany prior to World War II looked very different compared to its shape now (...) Territories had been acquired from Czechoslovakia while Austria had simply dissapeared from the map. Therefore, when considering the size or shape of Germany prior to World War II it is customary to look at within its borders as of 31 December 1937, prior to the period of territorial expansion. The Germany of those times was substantially bigger than it is today. It included the regions of Pomeriana (Pommern) and Silesia (Schlesien), the cities of Stettin and Breslau (now the Polish cities of Szczecin and Wroclaw), the former a major port on the Baltic, the latter a very important Silesian centre. In fact, Germany extended almost as far as the Polish port of Gdynia, located on a narrow Polish strip of coastline immediately to the west of the free city of Gdansk (Danzig). Yet further east was the German territory of East Prussia, the capital of which was Königsberg (now Kaliningrad), physically separate from the rest of the country and now divided entirely between Poland and the Russian Federation. In 1945 Germany's borders were altered by moving them substantially westward. The effect was to remove from German jurisdiction about twenty percent of the territory it possessed in 1937: East Prussia, Silesia and Pomeriania. All of this territory was placed under Polish administration, apart from the northern part of East Prussia, which was placed under Soviet jurisdiction".
Of course I agree that the war ended with a return to the original frontiers. It is a fact. Therefore, "Status Quo Ante Bellum" is appropriate to describe the territorial results of the conflict. This is also what I wrote initially in my proposal for the Result section of the Infobox: [4]. But this should not exclude the fact that the Byzantines defeated the Sasanids, invaded their heartland, and obtained that they sue for peace as the Sasanian organization crumbled, which means that the conflict ended with a Byzantine victory. In effect, sources essentially describe a Byzantine victory:
etc... etc.... etc.... In their Infoboxes, the French and Portuguese Wikipedias simply call it a "Byzantine victory" [5] [6], the Italian Wikipedia a "Byzantine Pyrrhic victory" [7], the Russian Wikipedia in its featured article calls it a "Persian defeat" [8], so I am not inventing anything here: this was not a draw. Why should this simple fact of history be denied in this article? To sum it up, it seems to me that the result of the conflict should be described as a Byzantine victory as the vast majority of sources are saying (or maybe just "the Byzantines prevailed" if we want to be softer), with a return to the Status Quo Ante Bellum, as suggested in my proposal for the Infobox: [9]. पाटलिपà¥à¤¤à¥à¤° ( talk) 17:24, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
According to the current version of the article,
However, this source (page 41) describes the avoidance of direct confrontation in Philippicus' campaign to be an intentional tactic. -- Z 20:58, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
In the infobox, should the result of the Byzantine–Sasanian War of 602–628 be presented as a Byzantine victory, a Sasanian victory, or something else? Previous discussion पाटलिपà¥à¤¤à¥à¤° Pat (talk) 05:45, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
Byzantine victory per sources, as far as I can tell, even if both sides were exhausted, and territory returned to the status quo ante:
पाटलिपà¥à¤¤à¥à¤° Pat (talk) 05:53, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
The lead sentence of this article states: "The Byzantine–Sasanian War of 602–628 was the final and most devastating of the series of wars fought between the Byzantine Empire and the Sasanian Empire of Iran." I question the use of "Iran" here:
It's inconsistent with much of this article and confusing. This article currently uses "Iran" or "Iranians" 11 times while using "Persia" or "Persians" 114 times.
In English, since 1935, "Iran" is generally used to refer to modern nation state of Iran, while "Persia" is generally used to refer to the historical entity. See Name of Iran article.
The Sasanian Empire at the start of this war included not only the area of the modern nation state of Iran but also that of the modern nation state of Iraq.
I propose either eliminating the last two words of this sentence (especially since the article doesn't identify the geographical location of the Byzantine Empire earlier in this sentence) or replacing the last phrase with "Sasanian dynasty of the Persian Empire" (with "Persian Empire" linking to the existing Persian Empire article). Contributor tom ( talk) 18:24, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
I do agree that the expression "the Sasanian Empire of Iran" [22], although not completely unheard of, sounds weird and redundant. पाटलिपà¥à¤¤à¥à¤° Pat (talk) 18:45, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
Hmm... while I do agree that the English language evolves and that -- at some point in the future -- many or most uses of "Persia" may get replaced by "Iran", I don't think there is a current general consensus among editors of the English wikipedia that this day has come. So, here's a revised proposal to resolve this issue for this article: A) change "Sasanian Empire" to "Sasanian Iran" in this article's first sentence (keeping the link); and B) change the first use of "Persia" in this article to "Persia (Ancient Iran)". As far as rewriting the entire article to replace Persia with Iran whenever appropriate, I think that should be done via the formal proposal mechanism. Does this work? Contributor tom ( talk) 19:09, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
@ Pablo1355: This is what it says on page 114 in Hellenism in Byzantium: The Transformations of Greek Identity and the Reception of the Classical Tradition;
‘‘language probably refers to what we call Greek, but what it means is ‘‘the language of the Romans.’’ After the sixth century, ‘‘the Roman language’’ or ‘‘the language of the Romans’’ could signify Greek as well as Latin. In other words, what we call ‘‘Greek’’ the Byzantines could call ‘‘Roman,’’ simply because they were Romans and that was their language. For Anna Komnene hellenizein and roma¨ızein meant the same thing, i.e., to speak ‘‘Greek’’ or ‘‘Roman.’’219 So, the evidence marshaled today to prove that Byzantium ‘‘was really’’ Greek had already been redeployed in Byzantium to prove that it was Roman. But Greek scholars tend to intrude the ethnonym ‘‘Greek’’ into texts where it does not occur. This is not dishonest; but it is done in good faith by historians who have failed to recognize the depth of Byzantium’s Roman identity. Their insistence on the name, however, to the point of using it when they believe that it ‘‘really means’’ the same thing as Roman, is indicative of their participation in a nationally oriented discourse that valorizes modern ethnonyms.220 What, then, happened to the ancient Greeks? Late-antique sources rarely mention them as a currently existing nation (as opposed to a religious group), which accords with the silence in those sources regarding all such ‘‘national’’ groups. Everyone, or almost everyone, was now basically a Roman. Former national or ethnic groups now designated only regional origins; for example, in the fifth century we have a reference to ‘‘a Roman woman from the region of Epeiros.’’ Libanios could refer to the ‘‘cities of the Greeks,’’ but he means by this the cities of Greece and Asia Minor as opposed to those of Palestine and Sicily, which might also have been called Greek but in another sense. But that other sense was hard to define, and its continued survival was a doubtful matter. By the time we reach the Miracles of Saint Demetrios, in the late sixth and early seventh centuries, ‘‘the land of the Greeks’’ really does mean nothing more than the Roman territory of’’
Can you please enlighten me where it makes any mention of Heraclius? -- HistoryofIran ( talk) 00:43, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
I am looking for reliable websites. If there is anyone that can help thank you! Jishiboka1 ( talk) 09:37, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
A " Siege of Caesarea (612)" article doesn't exist yet. A wikilink to it ( red link) sits on pole position in the "Byzantine–Sasanian War of 602–628" Wikidata infobox.
There are numerous problems with that.
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Byzantine–Sasanian War of 602–628 article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Byzantine–Sasanian War of 602–628 has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This Â
level-5 vital article is rated A-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This is mostly directed at User:Cplakidas. Seeing as we mostly know about the Western Turkic Khaganate involvement in this war through Byzantine sources, shouldn't we use the name that shows up in Byzantine sources for them? It seems that it is only a (albeit very prevalent) modern interpretation to connect the Khazars of the Byzantine sources with the Western Turkic Khaganate. So my question is: Why should we call them the Western Turkic Khaganate when in the sources for this war, they are called Khazars? I hope you or someone else can respond to this question. DemonicInfluence ( talk) 13:14, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
It currently states that "The war was originally begun by the great Sassanian king Khosrau II to avenge the death of Emperor Maurice"
This statement makes no sense. Side A starts a war to "avenge the death" of someone who was from side A, not to avenge the death of someone from side B ( the opponents). Eregli bob ( talk) 11:20, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
User:Cplakidas, can you tell me a source where the creation of Themes by Heraclius has been disproved? I want to know just for accuracy. DemonicInfluence ( talk) 16:12, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Reviewer: MinisterForBadTimes ( talk) 11:08, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
OK, I have started my review by going through the article and making revisions which I believe improve the article, and which are easier for me to do myself than to explain!
The major things I have done are:
More review to follow! MinisterForBadTimes ( talk) 16:32, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
OK more review points, in no particular order:
I think that's it for now. I still need to check the LEAD more carefully, but I don't foresee too many problems. Overall, I thought that this was an excellent article, well-written, well-presented and especially well-referenced. It was also a conflict I knew next-to-nothing about, and a pleasure to read about, as a good Wikipedia article should be! If the above points are addressed, I don't see that there will be any problems in passing the article for GA.
Regards, MinisterForBadTimes ( talk) 21:31, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
this article is very good. I have some prose issues that I'd like to bring up which may help clarify the text (and presumably help prepare for FAC).
The Byzantine-Sassanid War of 602–628 was the final and most devastating of the series of wars fought between the Byzantine Empire and the Sassanid Empire. The previous war had ended after Emperor Maurice had helped the Sassanian king Khosrau II regain his throne. When Maurice was murdered by the usurper Phocas, Khosrau declared war, ostensibly to avenge his benefactor's death. The decades-long conflict was fought in Egypt, the Levant, Mesopotamia, Anatolia, and even before the walls of Constantinople itself. While the Persians proved largely successful during the first stages of the war, conquering much of the Levant, Egypt, and even parts of Anatolia, the ascendancy of Heraclius eventually led to the Persians' demise. Heraclius' campaigns altered the balance, forcing the Persians on the defensive and allowing for the Byzantines to regain momentum. Allied with the Avars, the Persians attempted to take Constantinople, but were defeated there. Heraclius then invaded the Persian heartland, forcing the Persians to sue for peace.
The previous war ended in ---- after the Byzantine Emperor Maurice helped the Sassanian king, Khosrau II, regain his throne. In 602, Phocas, a political rival of Maurice, murdered the Emperor (usurper is such a npov word) and claimed the throne. Khosrau declared war on the Byzantine empire, ostensibly to avenge his benefactor's death.The combatants fought the decades-long conflict, the longest single war of the series, throughout much of the Middle East and parts of Eastern Europe: in Egypt, the Levant, Mesopotamia, Anatolia, and even before the walls of Constantinople itself.
The war had four phases. During the first (602-?), the Persians successfully conquered much of the Levant, Egypt, and even parts of Anatolia. In the second phase, Heraclius, the new Byzantine emperor, forced the Persians out of *****. In the third, the Persians had allied with the Avars, and together they attempted to take Constantinople; Heraclius defeated them there, and, in the fourth phase, invaded the Persian heartland, forcing them to sue for peace.
Or something. In a war this long, it is important to divide it into chunks that the reader can grasp. chunk one, Persian dominance, chunk 2, Heraclius, a new emperor (kills the previous one), has some successes doing X (not the demise of the Persians, please: he didn't kill them all!) Chunk 3, the battle at Constantinople; chunk 4, nail in the heart of Persia.
make sense? Auntieruth55 ( talk) 01:59, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
General
Specifics
Ouch. When we dig, it appears that practically every map regarding this topic should be subject to a RfD.
Happily, it appears that I had been taught an over-restrictive interpretation of image copyright. When I was working at the Graphics Lab, User: Lokal Profil was the resident copyright 'moderator' and his interpretation of copyright policy was that a derivative of an image with a given copyright is under the same copyright. This would imply that single-source maps (like some floating around here) are copyvios. However, a swing past the copyright queries page unearthed the following, that explains the acceptability of the license terms of your FP (that has obviously been subjected to serious scrutiny).
"...if you traced or copied, or closely copied an existing photograph, then your drawing may still be a "derivative work", and thus you wouldn't own the copyright. But if this is a drawing from life, or something where you used a number of different photographic references (or you took the photo yourself), then ignore that first part. Creative works that are entirely your own can be licensed however you choose..."
The important part is "if ... you used a number of different photographic references [then you own the copyright]". I was under the impression that an image inherited the most restrictive of the license terms of the images used in its construction. However, a composite from many sources appears to be acceptable as 'own work' in the sense that you are 'quoting' from multiple sources, not plagiarising any one of them. That is both intuitively reasonable (I previously though image copyright was bizarrely draconian) and a huge relief. I apologise for creating confusion and I gather that drawing on multiple sources to make a composite map is not only a good idea, but a copyright imperative. I will hunt around, but can anyone recommend sources for the locations of other contemporary cities and the extent of the Persian Empire? Dhatfield ( talk) 21:29, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
I didn't say it during the peer review, but this seems easily FAC-worthy to me. - Dank ( push to talk) 20:57, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
This article does not make clear when and how the Byzantines regained cities in Syria and Anatolia such as Antioch, Caeserea. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.239.120.194 ( talk) 09:32, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
Oman (1893) is an rather outdated source that ideally should be removed completely. For now I just removed it from the 622 campaign where it clearly contains false information.-- Kmhkmh ( talk) 14:27, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
The sources for this are insufficient. Davies cites Oman, and Oman cites nothing. Additionally, Oman is over a century old. The letter itself can be found in Pseudo-Sebeos, pp. 79-80, (trans. Thomson, Liverpool University Press, 2000.) The translation is also slightly but not significantly different, so perhaps an updated quote is needed. The article here also states that Khusro sent the letter to Heraclius. That's possible, but Sebeos' letter is filled with Biblical allusions (as the notes in the Thomson translation point out) and Herakleios' use of the letter speaks more of a propaganda stunt than a real letter. Notably, see Howard-Johnston's commentary in the second volume of the Sebeos set, p. 214: "While there is no reason to reject either item, one may legitimately ask whether the diplomatic note was an authentic Persian document, since it was so eagerly publicized by Heraclius and its phrasing was well calculated to heighten anti-Persian sentiment. It is more plausible to view it as a successful piece of Roman disinformation, designed to bring about the effect it achieved: insults thrown at Heraclius (senseless, insignificant, leader of brigands) were gratuitous and likely to be counter-productive; anti-Christian invective came ill from a ruler who now governed most of the east Christian world; and Old Testament citations, from Isaiah and the Psalms, would seem to betray a Christian hand at work in the drafting."
Why is this page being moved to "Sassanid" when the Sassanid Empire page was recently moved to "Sasanian" Empire, after much discussion? If there is a logic to the move, please explain here, where the issue of consistency among articles has already been raised and further comment is sought. Laszlo Panaflex ( talk) 18:04, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
I think that one goals of this articles is to justify the future Byzantine and Persian defeats by Muslim forces, and demean the Muslim victories, the article mentioned the regret of some historian who said that that "unnecessarily prolonged Byzantine–Persian conflict opened the way for Islam"!!! It's to be mentioned that:
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Byzantine–Sasanian War of 602–628. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
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) 15:30, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
This source (page 33) mentions successful attack "on Cyprus (around 619)" by Sassanid seaborne forces. -- Z 16:34, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
The text of a letter supposedly from Khosrow to Heraclius is mentioned at Byzantine–Sasanian_War_of_602–628#Egypt. It must be attributed to him by Roman sources, and I think we should name the source(s) after "— Khosrau II". -- Z 12:17, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
What's the rationale for this? Neither side gained any territory or influence. So wouldn't it be a Status quo ante bellum? Koopinator ( talk) 10:16, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
Cplakidas, Here is a reliable source stating that Sassanian armies conquered Asia Minor, therefore, please stop removing "medievaal Anatolia".
http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/byzantine-iranian-relations
I quote : "In 610 Heraclius (d. 641) overthrew Phocas and sought peace once again, but Ḵosrow refused. His armies continued their march in two directions: Å ahrÂvarÄz took Antioch, Apamea, Caesarea, Mazaca, DaÂmascus, Jerusalem (whence he sent the “true cross†to Persia), and, in 616, Egypt. Å ÄhÄ“n conquered the whole of Asia Minor, entered Chalcedon after a short siege, and encamped within a mile of Constantinople itself, in the expectation that his Avar allies would descend from the Balkans and take the city"
Thanks. Best regards.--- Wikaviani ( talk) 20:42, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
"I respect source-based arguments, but if you want to argue something, you need to have knowledge of details, not just generic overviews that necessarily simplify matters."Â : As i said, i spent many sleepless nights reading historical works about the history of Persia, so that, modestly, i think i know this quite well. Thank you for the source, however, while i took the time to read it carefully, i see no evidence that Byzantine forces where fully ruling Anatolia at that time. More, sources seem not unanimous. While the Foss source speaks of several raids deep into asia Minor, Iranica and Oxford handbook of Iranian history (also a reliable source for this topic) rather say there was a Persian conquest of Anatolia. The fact that Pesian forces focused on the richer southern provinces of the Byzantine Empire is not in contradiction with the conquest of Anatolia, this would be a clear case of OR to take the statement "they focused on the southern provinces" as a source to support a supposed failed attempt to conquer Anatolia. Anyway, i think that leaving "Medieval Anatolia" is better than "Byzantine Anatolia" which is misleading and makes the reader think that Byzantine empire continuously ruled that area at that time while this is not true (even according to Foss). However, since LouisAragon is actually siding with your version (third party opinion), then i have no other choice but to drop the stick even if this version is, according to me and several reliable sources, wrong. Best regards.--- Wikaviani ( talk) 16:52, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
It seems some users are trying to portray this conflict as "a draw" on the basis that the Sasanid Empire retained its borders in the end.... The argument that "nobody won because frontiers were returned to the Statu Quo Ante" is a bit like arguing that Japan and Germany did not loose World War II because they essentially retained their frontiers in the end: it is not a proper interpretation of what happened and of the fact that these two countries were utterly defeated.
Such views are inapropriately minimizing the Byzantine success in this war. Beate Dignas in "Rome and Persia in Late Antiquity: Neighbours and Rivals" is quite specific that this was a Byzantine victory (although certainly a difficult and costly, but certainly not marginal, one):
So Heraclius vanquished Xusro/Khosrow (not just "won a battle"), and Khosrow's successor Kavad sued for peace: I don't know a better definition of victory.... As if it weren't clear enough, Beate Dignas also sums up the conflict in unambiguous terms at the end of his chapter:
He also mentions that Heraclius did not want to overly weaken the Sasanian Empire in note 157 p.150:
Let's respect the sources and state correctly that the Byzantine prevailed in the end. In my opinion, "the Byzantines prevailed" might be enough and softer than "Byzantine victory", especially since it was actually a Pyrrhic victory for the Byzantine Empire, although "Byzantine victory" might be more accurate and more standard. This result should be shown in the "Result" area of the Infobox, rather than just "Statu Quo Ante Bellum" [1] as I found it initially and which is highly misleading, or even "Persian invasion of the Byzantine Empire repelled" as it is at the time of this post and which denies the Byzantine successful and very destructive (arguably lethal) counter-offensive into the heartland of the Sasanian Empire [2]. My proposal for the "Result" section of the Infobox is this: [3]. पाटलिपà¥à¤¤à¥à¤° ( talk) 19:27, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
"It has already been shown how the legal status of Germany changed in several ways after the unconditional surrender to the Allies in 1945, from being an occupied country to the period of division and eventual unification. (...) Germany prior to World War II looked very different compared to its shape now (...) Territories had been acquired from Czechoslovakia while Austria had simply dissapeared from the map. Therefore, when considering the size or shape of Germany prior to World War II it is customary to look at within its borders as of 31 December 1937, prior to the period of territorial expansion. The Germany of those times was substantially bigger than it is today. It included the regions of Pomeriana (Pommern) and Silesia (Schlesien), the cities of Stettin and Breslau (now the Polish cities of Szczecin and Wroclaw), the former a major port on the Baltic, the latter a very important Silesian centre. In fact, Germany extended almost as far as the Polish port of Gdynia, located on a narrow Polish strip of coastline immediately to the west of the free city of Gdansk (Danzig). Yet further east was the German territory of East Prussia, the capital of which was Königsberg (now Kaliningrad), physically separate from the rest of the country and now divided entirely between Poland and the Russian Federation. In 1945 Germany's borders were altered by moving them substantially westward. The effect was to remove from German jurisdiction about twenty percent of the territory it possessed in 1937: East Prussia, Silesia and Pomeriania. All of this territory was placed under Polish administration, apart from the northern part of East Prussia, which was placed under Soviet jurisdiction".
Of course I agree that the war ended with a return to the original frontiers. It is a fact. Therefore, "Status Quo Ante Bellum" is appropriate to describe the territorial results of the conflict. This is also what I wrote initially in my proposal for the Result section of the Infobox: [4]. But this should not exclude the fact that the Byzantines defeated the Sasanids, invaded their heartland, and obtained that they sue for peace as the Sasanian organization crumbled, which means that the conflict ended with a Byzantine victory. In effect, sources essentially describe a Byzantine victory:
etc... etc.... etc.... In their Infoboxes, the French and Portuguese Wikipedias simply call it a "Byzantine victory" [5] [6], the Italian Wikipedia a "Byzantine Pyrrhic victory" [7], the Russian Wikipedia in its featured article calls it a "Persian defeat" [8], so I am not inventing anything here: this was not a draw. Why should this simple fact of history be denied in this article? To sum it up, it seems to me that the result of the conflict should be described as a Byzantine victory as the vast majority of sources are saying (or maybe just "the Byzantines prevailed" if we want to be softer), with a return to the Status Quo Ante Bellum, as suggested in my proposal for the Infobox: [9]. पाटलिपà¥à¤¤à¥à¤° ( talk) 17:24, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
According to the current version of the article,
However, this source (page 41) describes the avoidance of direct confrontation in Philippicus' campaign to be an intentional tactic. -- Z 20:58, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
In the infobox, should the result of the Byzantine–Sasanian War of 602–628 be presented as a Byzantine victory, a Sasanian victory, or something else? Previous discussion पाटलिपà¥à¤¤à¥à¤° Pat (talk) 05:45, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
Byzantine victory per sources, as far as I can tell, even if both sides were exhausted, and territory returned to the status quo ante:
पाटलिपà¥à¤¤à¥à¤° Pat (talk) 05:53, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
The lead sentence of this article states: "The Byzantine–Sasanian War of 602–628 was the final and most devastating of the series of wars fought between the Byzantine Empire and the Sasanian Empire of Iran." I question the use of "Iran" here:
It's inconsistent with much of this article and confusing. This article currently uses "Iran" or "Iranians" 11 times while using "Persia" or "Persians" 114 times.
In English, since 1935, "Iran" is generally used to refer to modern nation state of Iran, while "Persia" is generally used to refer to the historical entity. See Name of Iran article.
The Sasanian Empire at the start of this war included not only the area of the modern nation state of Iran but also that of the modern nation state of Iraq.
I propose either eliminating the last two words of this sentence (especially since the article doesn't identify the geographical location of the Byzantine Empire earlier in this sentence) or replacing the last phrase with "Sasanian dynasty of the Persian Empire" (with "Persian Empire" linking to the existing Persian Empire article). Contributor tom ( talk) 18:24, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
I do agree that the expression "the Sasanian Empire of Iran" [22], although not completely unheard of, sounds weird and redundant. पाटलिपà¥à¤¤à¥à¤° Pat (talk) 18:45, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
Hmm... while I do agree that the English language evolves and that -- at some point in the future -- many or most uses of "Persia" may get replaced by "Iran", I don't think there is a current general consensus among editors of the English wikipedia that this day has come. So, here's a revised proposal to resolve this issue for this article: A) change "Sasanian Empire" to "Sasanian Iran" in this article's first sentence (keeping the link); and B) change the first use of "Persia" in this article to "Persia (Ancient Iran)". As far as rewriting the entire article to replace Persia with Iran whenever appropriate, I think that should be done via the formal proposal mechanism. Does this work? Contributor tom ( talk) 19:09, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
@ Pablo1355: This is what it says on page 114 in Hellenism in Byzantium: The Transformations of Greek Identity and the Reception of the Classical Tradition;
‘‘language probably refers to what we call Greek, but what it means is ‘‘the language of the Romans.’’ After the sixth century, ‘‘the Roman language’’ or ‘‘the language of the Romans’’ could signify Greek as well as Latin. In other words, what we call ‘‘Greek’’ the Byzantines could call ‘‘Roman,’’ simply because they were Romans and that was their language. For Anna Komnene hellenizein and roma¨ızein meant the same thing, i.e., to speak ‘‘Greek’’ or ‘‘Roman.’’219 So, the evidence marshaled today to prove that Byzantium ‘‘was really’’ Greek had already been redeployed in Byzantium to prove that it was Roman. But Greek scholars tend to intrude the ethnonym ‘‘Greek’’ into texts where it does not occur. This is not dishonest; but it is done in good faith by historians who have failed to recognize the depth of Byzantium’s Roman identity. Their insistence on the name, however, to the point of using it when they believe that it ‘‘really means’’ the same thing as Roman, is indicative of their participation in a nationally oriented discourse that valorizes modern ethnonyms.220 What, then, happened to the ancient Greeks? Late-antique sources rarely mention them as a currently existing nation (as opposed to a religious group), which accords with the silence in those sources regarding all such ‘‘national’’ groups. Everyone, or almost everyone, was now basically a Roman. Former national or ethnic groups now designated only regional origins; for example, in the fifth century we have a reference to ‘‘a Roman woman from the region of Epeiros.’’ Libanios could refer to the ‘‘cities of the Greeks,’’ but he means by this the cities of Greece and Asia Minor as opposed to those of Palestine and Sicily, which might also have been called Greek but in another sense. But that other sense was hard to define, and its continued survival was a doubtful matter. By the time we reach the Miracles of Saint Demetrios, in the late sixth and early seventh centuries, ‘‘the land of the Greeks’’ really does mean nothing more than the Roman territory of’’
Can you please enlighten me where it makes any mention of Heraclius? -- HistoryofIran ( talk) 00:43, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
I am looking for reliable websites. If there is anyone that can help thank you! Jishiboka1 ( talk) 09:37, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
A " Siege of Caesarea (612)" article doesn't exist yet. A wikilink to it ( red link) sits on pole position in the "Byzantine–Sasanian War of 602–628" Wikidata infobox.
There are numerous problems with that.