Jump to content

Talk:Battle of Carrhae/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Corrections

I corrected some of the rough grammar in the "Battle" section text. The article (as many articles on Wikipedia do) probably needs more sources or references listed at the bottom, especially printed sources (not game manuals), since they are often more reliable than Internet references. Cla68 16:40, 12 April 2006 (UTC)


I removed this sentence "Therefore, a strong truth lies in the myth: the faults of the Roman army exposed at Carrhae (such as its vulnerability to cavalry on open ground) were never fixed, and even recurred, as in the much later catastrophe at Adrianople against Gothic cavalry." This is a popular view on the battle of Adrianople but the battle was lost due to the Roman army being halfdeployed on the opening of the battle, not the cavalry. The Gothic cavalry was only lightly equipped and armored, very unlike Parthian cataphracts. Their charge cut the Roman army in pieces as they were out of formation. The rest of the battle turnt into vicious infantry fights, supposedly the Goths using column tactics to further take the Roman lines apart. The Gothic cavalry was only essential in finalizing the victory by hunting down the routers. The late imperial army of Rome was actually quite adept and varied to face all the range of threats along the long imperial border. This also includes the introduction of increasingly heavy shock cavalry quite like Parthian cataphracts. Mangalores 05-03-2007

The testedo

You are right that the romans didnt use testeudo but crassus did in fact put his men in a square formation which in the end lead to the defeat of the romans because they were so packed together that the parthians could hit them without aiming. Though I believe the Romans getting arrows pinned to their hands is true due to the fact that many eastern armies used a composite bow which could pierce the legion scutum shield and Hamata Segemta armor with ease.(you can correct me at the battle if they used Hamata Semta or Lorica Segemta) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.201.78.56 (talk) 03:56, 27 February 2007 (UTC).

The text of this article (in the 06:33, 16 Feb 2005 version) looks a lot like the description of the battle in the "Rome: Total War" computer game. I only own the Spanish version of the game, so I can't be sure that the text is copied verbatim, but the structure is very similar, so at the very least they share the same origin.

That would also explain the "un-encyclopedia-like" style.

Maybe someone can confirm with an English version of the game?

In any case, I find the older, shorter version of the article (up to and including 23:54, 21 Jan 2005) much better written. 80.58.1.111 11:26, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The game mentions the Parthians killing Crassus by pouring molten gold down his throat - the article doesn't. Kazak

I think they made that up for the game. Plutarch says
a Parthian, named Pomaxathres, killed Crassus. Some say that it was not Pomaxathres, but another, who killed Crassus, and that Pomaxathres cut off the head and right hand when Crassus was lying on the ground.... Surena sent the head and hand of Crassus to Hyrodes in Armenia; and, causing a report to be carried by messengers to Seleukeia that he was bringing Crassus alive, he got ready a kind of ridiculous procession which, in mockery, he called a triumph. (Plutarch, Life of Crassus, XXXI–XXXII.)
while Dio Cassius says:
Crassus fell among the rest, whether he was slain by one of his own men to prevent his capture alive, or whether by the enemy because he was wounded anyway. This was his end. And the Parthians, as some say, poured gold into his mouth in mockery; for though a man of great wealth he was so eager for money as to pity those who could not support an enrolled legion from their own means, regarding them as poor men. (Dio Cassius, Roman History, book 40).
so it's pretty clear that Crassus was killed in the battle and if gold was poured into his mouth it was done after his death. Gdr 00:49, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
There is a medieval map (the Vercelli Map) that, in a caption, says "here the Parthians fed to Crassus a drink of molten gold", so the execution by molten gold is a fact. I doubt the game would have any reason to make that up in either case. Cossack 22:57, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
How is that fact? That sentence could easily refer to Crassus's corpse, it does not mention whether he was alive or dead. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.99.138.2 (talk) 13:35, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
killing him by pouring molten gold down his throat is certainly a more exciting story, whihc is why it's often repeated. doesn't make it true. for me it's unlikely, if he was so rich and captured alive why not ransom him for a lot of money? and few Roman nobles were ever captured alive by their enemies. 217.7.209.108 08:57, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Incorrect use of the lorica segmenta

The Romans at this time did not use lorica segmenta armor. Iron band armor only became widespread during the 2nd century CE, especially during Trajan's time period. The standard armor for heavy infantry-Roman legionaries would have been specialized chainmail. I have corrected the link to lead to the lorica hamata page.

Intranetusa 00:26, 3 December 2007 (UTC)


The style of the article is ridiculously un-encyclopedia-like: "but our story begins not further to the East, but in Rome!" 128.237.241.229 06:34, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

"Legacy" section and the role of diplomacy

Were the legionary eagles really returned as the result of diplomacy, without military confrontations? Quite an achievement, and I suppose Augustus was capable of it. I'm skeptical about the claim only because Antony's military attempt (which I've now added) had been omitted. Could we bolster this interesting point with a citation? Cynwolfe (talk) 16:27, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

"screening"

In the section on the battle, it's said that the cavalry led by Publius Crassus were screening as an advance force when they were surrounded by the Parthians. I don't think this is correct, and the description of the battle seems rather fuzzy overall. Here are three secondary sources that I found helpful:

  • Martin Sicker, The Pre-Islamic Middle East (Greenwood Publishing Group, 2000), pp. 149–151 online (from a strategic point of view);
  • A.D.H. Bivar, "The Political History of Iran under the Arsacids," in The Cambridge History of Iran (Cambridge University Press, 1983) vol. 3, pp. 48–56 limited preview online (with lots of background before getting to the actual battle);
  • Philip Sidnell, "Warhorse: Cavalry in Ancient Warfare" (Continuum, 2006), pp. 237–242 online (from the cavalry's POV).

I'm sure there are others. A major primary source for the Battle of Carrhae is Plutarch's Life of Crassus, starting around section 17 here. I think a closer look might be beneficial to the article. Cynwolfe (talk) 16:31, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

No sources cited in section on the actual battle

The section that attempts to describe the battle appears to have been written via séance, as we are told what Crassus was thinking and feeling. These may be someone's interpretations of his actions; but they are presented as fact. The section currently reads like a History Channel script, straining for effect. There's no awareness that the ancient sources may be biased or self-contradictory; information is treated as transparent on its face, as if military or other historians have no disagreements on the interpretation of this material. Cynwolfe (talk) 22:04, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Buildup to war

The fact that Crassus had a force of "seven legions" is undeniable.(based on all references) But since different sources consider different number of legionaries (heavy infantry) in each legion, therefore total number of his heavy infantry varies: 30000 , 24500-28000 , 35000 , 36000 down to 30000 ,36000 , 36000. If you search more, you will find more different numbers. In wikipedia each typical legion in the time of Crassus is considered to be 5120 men. So it will be 35840 men. *** in FACT *** (contact) 05:33, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

The part which is probably not valid: "It was the first of many battles between the Roman and Persian empires," Parthian empire wasn't Persian empire - most likely it had nothing to do with Persians. Parthians were rather Scythians (Huns??). The way they won the battle (luring the enemy pretending retreat and when they follow releasing rain of arrows onto them) is typical Scythian/Hun/Hungarian way of fighting. Not mentioning the 'composite' bows which also called 'Scythian' bow well-known used by the two other(?) above mentioned nations. It could be said that different nations/cultures could use that kind of instrument, still, I don't know of such thing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.149.17.74 (talk) 03:50, 28 April 2011 (UTC)


Sorry but you are wrong. Parthians were North Persians. They spoke Persian, were Zoroastrians (The native religion of Persians) and considered themselfs as the succesors of the Aechamids. Later after they conquered the Seleucids they adopted greek and made it a "Lingua Franca".

You are aware that Scythians were not one people? They were many partly-nomadic and full-nomadic people living from the regions of Modern day Turkmenistan to Ukraine. They did not even have one language...

And Huns came from thre regions of central Asia at the time of 3rd and 4th century AD. PArthains were in Iran, Afghanistan and Tajikistan as early as 200 B.C. --159.81.76.102 (talk) 09:21, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

First of the Roman/Parthian battles?

This claim is wrong. In the pointing article it says: 

"Battles between the Parthian Empire and the Roman Republic began in 92 BC"
But this battle is in 53 BC...--Leonardo Da Vinci (talk) 10:25, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Testudo

There is no mention whatsoever in the records of the battle of Carrhae of legionaries assuming the testudo formation.

WILL PEOPLE STOP USING COMPUTER GAME MANUALS AS REFERENCE MATERIAL!

Furthermore, shields pinnend to soldiers' arms and hands are likely to be rare incidents highlighted by ancient authors for dramatic effect.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Tortoise_formation"

"For if [the legionaries] decided to lock shields for the purpose of avoiding the arrows by the closeness of their array, the [cataphracts] were upon them with a rush, striking down some, and at least scattering the others; and if they extended their ranks to avoid this, they would be struck with the arrows." - Cassius Dio Twelvetoner (talk) 19:22, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Picture?

I think a picture would be very deserved for this article. If anyone could manage to upload a good one, feel free to do so. :-) - LouisAragon (talk) 00:09, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Pronunciation

How do you pronounce "Carrhae"? I can't find anything online. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.198.120.221 (talk) 21:33, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Lede

"His death is sometimes associated with the end of the First Triumvirate"

Sounds extremely weaslely. His death would be almost synonymous with the end of the Triumvirate, the Triumvirate ended by definition. Yeah, I get it that tensions existed anyway, but that doesn't fix this sentence.-192.166.53.198 (talk) 07:10, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Battle of Carrhae. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:27, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Parthian statue picture

For years now, some people have been trying to force this picture of a Parthian statue (the "Shami statue", Statue, National Museum of Iran 2401) on this article, in the belief that it can somehow be connected to the Parthian general of Carrhae, Surena.

We've been through this half a dozen of times in various talkpage discussions: There is apparently no evidence at all who this statue is meant to depict, and no reliable source has ever been found that even as much as hints to the possibility that it might be Surena. We have an article about this statue, citing a decent number of reliable sources describing it, (among them this [1] fairly decent online article in Encyclopedia Iranica, normally a decent source on such matters), and none of them even mentions the name. The alleged connection between the statue and this person appears to be the product of amateur speculation on the web.

The most recent version of this canard, edit-warred back into the page by PersianFire (talk · contribs) [2][3][4], is doubly nonsensical: first, it tries to hedge the speculative WP:OR identification through the classic weasel wording of "(attributed) by some"; second, it misuses the term "attributed" (in English, when you say about a work of art that it is "attributed" to somebody, you mean the artist who made it, not the person it depicts).

The arguments given by PersianFire in their edit summaries [5] are equally egregious: There is no need of a source to confirm whether it is meant to depict Surena. It is a relevant pic depicting a Parthian nobleman - how Surena w/h looked like. Same as statue of Leonidas I, no source stating it's him, however it's still a rep of a hoplite. – First, yes, there is a need of a source; since the caption expresses a claim of fact, that claim needs to be sourced, period. Second, the comparison with Leonidas is bogus, if it is meant to allude to this well-known statue. While it is true that the ascription is not certain in the case of this statue, the crucial difference to the present case is: it is sourced. We have an article about this statue too, and you can follow the citation showing that there is indeed a serious scholarly debate, where authors have explicitly discussed the likely hypothesis that the statue was meant to represent Leonidas (even though it's not universally considered certain).

I'm going to remove the picture again some time tomorrow, if reliable sources are not brought forward for it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:20, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Parthians = Persians??

The part which is probably not valid: "It was the first of many battles between the Roman and Persian empires," Parthian empire wasn't Persian empire - most likely it had nothing to do with Persians. Parthians were rather Scythians (Huns??). The way they won the battle (luring the enemy pretending retreat and when they follow releasing rain of arrows onto them) is typical Scythian/Hun/Hungarian way of fighting. Not mentioning the 'composite' bows which also called 'Scythian' bow well-known used by the two other(?) above mentioned nations. It could be said that different nations/cultures could use that kind of instrument, still, I don't know of such thing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hetseven (talk • contribs) 04:10, 28 April 2011 (UTC)



Your wrong. Parthians where Persians... They spoke the same language, had same religion (Zoroastrianism), originated from the same place and their rulers claimed to be succeors of the Aechamids.

Persia has had many empires. The first one is called Aechamid Empire. The second one is called Parthian Empire. The third one was Sassanid empire. Then the Arabs came and conquered the Sassanids in the 7-8th century.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Arsaces (talk • contribs) 14:22, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Gaaah! Ok, Parthians, Medes, and Persians are all IRANIANS. They are not exactly the same but closely related and all spoke Persian dialects.HammerFilmFan (talk) 01:09, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Let me clear this up, Parthians, Persians, Medes, Scythians and many other such ethnic groups of that time were all ancient Iranian peoples. Just like how there are many Iranian peoples, of which many still live in their homeland Iran, groups like the Kurds, Azeris, Persians, Balochis, Tajiks and many others which are descended from the ancient Iranian peoples. I would also like to clear up the common misconception that is the naming of Achaemenid Empire which many people know as the First Persian Empire, there was no such thing because firstly Cyrus the Great which was a half-Median and half-Persian king and secondly his mission, which succeeded, was to unite and unify all the Iranian peoples, he wasn't a Persian ethnic nationalist with his movement starting and the capital of his empire being centered in the "Fars" (Persian in Farsi) region of Iran. BTW, the Median Empire was the first Iranian Empire, the Achaemenid Empire was second, Parthians third, Sassanids fourth and literally a dozen Iranian empires ruled Iran between the period of the Arab Invasion 638 AD and the rise of the Safavids in 1501 BC. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Migboy123 (talk • contribs) 08:34, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Agreed, Arsacid Parthians, who ruled oover Iran as the Arsacid Empire for about 500 years were of Dahae extraction, and more precisely of Parni extraction (the Parni were an Eastern Iranian people). Although not Persian, these Iranian peoples were closely related. Best regards.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 12:16, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Source for numerical superiority Romans?

It is stated that the Romans were superior numerically, but what is the source for that statement? We probably do know how much Romans were involved (number of legions), but what is the source for the numbers on the Parthian side? If it's Plutarch, then what was his source? He barely ever made it out of Greece during his life, and we're pretty sure he never set foot in Parthia. —85.147.184.152 (talk • contribs) 15:53, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Roman Republic

I question the use of the term republic in this context. At this point Rome was clearly an empire, regardless of what its internal political configuration or self-description was, and had been so since the defeat of Carthage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.242.248.88 (talk) 22:34, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

You are certainly correct that the Roman Republic was an empire :

a major political unit having a territory of great extent or a number of territories or peoples under a single sovereign authority
Applicable to the Roman Republic
especially : one having an emperor as chief of state
Not applicable to the Roman Republic

However, "empire" is not a term for a polity (form of government) but rather characterizes, for a grouping of several territories and peoples, that there exists a singular authority vs any other arrangement without a singular authority (i.e. a confederacy of sovereign states).

In the article, Roman Republic is a proper noun phrase of the name of an era of classical Roman civilization, not as a dictionary term. And the Roman Republic's form of government was republican, though with very narrow and bizarre definitions of citizenship compared to today.

Phdye (talk) 21:23, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Inaccuracies

This section bothers me. "For several centuries previous to this battle - in fact, ever since winning the Second Punic War - the Romans had seemed, to themselves as to others, unstoppable. They had defeated, and eventually conquered and absorbed, every[citation needed] country which they encountered. At least in the eastward direction, this centuries-long march of conquest came to an end with the Battle of Carrhae; though the Romans would continue fighting with Parthia and later with its Sassanid succesor for hundreds of years, they would never either aim at or achieve their eastern rival's conquest and subjugation."

First of all, this is false. The Romans had suffered numerous setbacks in Iberia, plus they had failed to conquer Britain at this point. More importantly, Trajan had desired and aimed at the subjugation of Persia, but stopped after conquering Mesopotamia due to advancing age. I'm not sure that a "Roman invincibility myth" existed at all- the closest thing I can find at this time period is the Gauls believing Caesar was unbeatable, and even that was shattered after Gergovia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Caius Magnus (talk • contribs) 14:15, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

thanks for clarifying - should show logisitics was not a Roman expertise — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.56.224.34 (talk) 17:13, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Battle_of_Carrhae/Archive_1&oldid=1244180207"