Talk:Byzantine–Sasanian War of 602–628

Belligerents

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)

Well, the simple answer is that we should avoid relying too much on primary sources, as well as not draw our own conclusions from them, per WP:OR, WP:RS and all that. If modern scholarship is almost universal in equating these "Khazars" with the Western Turks, then we should do the same. Having a link to the W. Turkic Khaganate appearing as "Khazars" is bad practice, since these two entities are entirely distinct. In general, the Byzantines were never very good with naming foreign peoples (chiefly due to their penchant for classicizing everything, thus you can find the Ottomans called "Persians" or the Rus' and the Magyars "Scythians") so we should do the work for them. For clarity's sake however, we should explain in the text that the Byzantine sources call them "Khazars" etc. and that the currently prevalent interpretation is that these were the W. Turks... Cheers, Constantine ✍ 13:29, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick and clear explanation. I do have a little section explaining the modern scholarship on that. I had earlier changed the commander from Tong Yabghu to Ziebel. Should this similarly be changed to reflect the modern scholarship? I'd like to know before making a stupid edit or something. Thanks. DemonicInfluence (talk) 13:43, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm, I would favour reverting to Tong Yabghu, but since in this case there is no ambiguity, Ziebel could stay, provided that this name is consistently used throughout the text (again with an explanation, preferably on the first occurrence, that he is identified with Tong Yabghu). It's up to you. Constantine ✍ 13:50, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Okay. I'll keep the Ziebel. Thanks for explaining. DemonicInfluence (talk) 20:53, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

"If modern scholarship is almost universal in equating these "Khazars" with the Western Turks, then we should do the same. Having a link to the W. Turkic Khaganate appearing as "Khazars" is bad practice, since these two entities are entirely distinct." You seem to be contradicting yourself here ! Are the "Khazars" and the "Western Turkic Khagabate" the same, or entirely distinct ? Eregli bob (talk) 11:24, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I think I've made the distinction clear now. Correct me if I'm wrong DemonicInfluence (talk) 18:31, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Nonsensical statement

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)

I suppose I should make that clearer, but the idea is explained later in that Maurice had helped Khosrau gain his throne. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DemonicInfluence (talk • contribs) 13:18, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I changed the wording of this in the lead, since the vengeance for Maurice was evidently just a pretext for land-grabbing. Constantine ✍ 16:20, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for thatDemonicInfluence (talk) 18:05, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Themes

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)

Check the section "Origins" in the Theme (Byzantine district) article. Haldon in Byzantium in the Seventh Century: the Transformation of a Culture also mentions the hypotheses etc. Constantine ✍ 16:22, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I checked out this. Since it seems like a reasonable hypothesis, I think it could warrant inclusion into this article as a hypothesis. Do you agree with this? DemonicInfluence (talk) 18:05, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm, you could certainly include this, but it must be made clear that this hypothesis has been almost overwhelmingly rejected by recent scholarship. Constantine ✍ 19:24, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Byzantine-Sassanid War of 602–628/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

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:

1) Restructuring - I have tried to group the group the text into sections and sub-sections which give more coherence to the narrative, divide the conflict into definite phases, and correspond to other articles on wars (particularly "Background" and "Significance").

2) Images - WP:MOS requires that images directly under headings are aligned to the right, and that text should not be 'sandwiched' between two images. Most of the changes I made are to alter the layout of the article to comply with these requirements.

3) Quotations - Short quotations should be within the body of the text. I have therefore collapsed two short quotations into the text.

4) Notes - I have tried (but not yet finished) to remove footnotes from the references, and into a separate system.

I have now finished this.

More review to follow! MinisterForBadTimes (talk) 16:32, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the work and for reviewing :). I didn't know that Images had to be on the right. Thanks :D DemonicInfluence (talk) 17:34, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

OK more review points, in no particular order:

• References - All page ranges in citations should use the n-dash (–) ( & ndash ; ), and not the hyphen (-). Ideally, citations should read: "Jones, p. 101." (two full-stops), but I'm not going to deny the article GA on that basis; it might be needed for later reviews though.
  • I think I've got all of these.
• Extra references - I've put some tags in a few places where I think a specific citation is needed to back up the point. There aren't many though - the article is generally very well referenced.
  • I think I addressed all of these with citations
• Requests for more info/clarification - I've inserted visible double asterisks (**) into the text at points where I think more information is needed, or clarification of the point. You can use the "find" function on your browser to locate these points; the details of each request are in hidden comments at that point in the text. Once the points have been addressed, you can delete the hidden text and asterisks.
  • I've responded to all these asterisks. Most of them I commented, but some I edited the article to make more clear as per the asterisk. I removed the ones that I believe I have clarified
    • I've tidied up most of the rest. It's strange about the Cappadocia/Issus thing - is there anything more known about the date of that battle? And was Shahrbaraz definitely the Sassanid commander? I've added a new comment in the text at this point.
      • I'll just respond to that comment here because it's just one comment. Oman, Kaegi, DFL, Norwich, and Ostrogorsky all say that it was in 622 against Shahrbaraz. Some of thee sources have a few more details about the maneuvering, but not on the actual location of the battle, which is stated as somewhere between Issus and Cappadocia. I'm just as confused as you why this is named the Battle of Issus.
        • Let's just leave it vague then.
• Maps at the end - there are two sets of images at the end of the article which duplicate each other. I think you should chose one or the other (the 630 AD map, or the double 626/650 map); both aren't needed. I have temporarily placed one of the maps into hidden text.
  • I feel like they aren't quite the same because the 626/650 both show the the Byzantines in a weakened state, but the 630 map shows the Byzantines recovered, at least territorially. However, I'm don't care that much about this.
    • Would it be possible to make a double image with 630 and 650 maps? I'll give it a go.
      • Thanks :D
• Quotation - there is a great quotation from Heraclius giving Khosrau an ultimatum - but the text of the article does not mention the ultimatum - which is a shame. I have placed the quote in hidden text until this is resolved.
  • I added a small part in the text to facilitate the transition.
• Dubious point - I have tagged one sentence as dubious: "These remaining lands were thoroughly impoverished by frequent attacks, marking the transition from classical urban civilization to a more rural, medieval form of society." Mu understanding is that this transition was well underway centuries before. However, if there is a reference which backs up this point, then fair enough.
  • I removed this. It was there in the first place because I had copied from the aftermath section of the Roman-Persian Wars, which is a FA.

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)

I addressed the concerns noted above :) DemonicInfluence (talk) 23:51, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Article passed! MinisterForBadTimes (talk) 15:07, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for completing the review :)DemonicInfluence (talk) 15:42, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

comments for WPMH ACR

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)

I think I get your idea. I divided up the lead similarly to what you suggested. DemonicInfluence (talk) 04:42, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Further copyedit proposals

General

• I am commenting to meet FAC criterion 1a and therefore being quite tough on the text. Don't be disheartened, it's already a good article.
• Perhaps it should be noted that the majority of the sources are Byzantine in origin (is assume they are from the detectable POV), and that they are relatively abundant / scarce (I assume scarce) relative to other historical periods / regions.
  • I'll add a section on sources when I regain access to my sources in about 3 days.
  • Added
• There is no mention of force composition or strength, beyond a single mention that the Persians were stronger in missile troops (as was their historical practice). There is also mention of elite Gallic cavalry fighting for the Byzantines (although they are given another name) and trebuchets (very advanced tech for this time). Is there any chance of more clarity on this - even a vague idea pf relative strengths it makes a huge difference to the appreciation of the battles. Were the Kataphractoi in use at this time? I gather so, since the relevant article has a picture with this caption "A royal inscription etched in rock at the Taq-e Bostan relief located in Kermanshah, Iran. Depicted is Sassanid king Khosrau II (590 to 628 AD) dressed in full cataphract regalia mounted atop his favourite horse, Shabdiz." Perhaps a good choice for this article?
  • I hope also to add more about this when I get my sources.
• The specific edits below are intended to give you an idea of the fixes needed throughout. I have not gone past Byzantine Resurgence, since I believe the more pressing need is for good maps. Please attempt to carry through the type of disambiguation that Ruth and I are talking about into the rest of the article, although if I remember correctly the latter half does get more structured and clearer - possibly due to the availability of sources.

Specifics

• Khosrau proceeded to declare war, ostensibly to avenge his benefactor's death. to avenge Maurice's death.
• and even before the walls of Constantinople itself. and and even parts of Anatolia slightly clumsy overuse of "even".
• campaigns into Persia lands from 622–626 altered the balance Persian lands? Persia?
• Allied with the Avars, the Persians attempted to take Constantinople in 626 made a final attempt to...
• Interchangeable use of Persia and Sassanid Empire without clarification.
• Benefiting from their weakened condition, Redundant
• and the rest of North Africa I see the technical distinction, but would scan better as ...and North Africa. Not too much of a stretch given that references to North Africa frequently centre around Carthage, as opposed to Egypt.
• Over the following centuries, most of the Byzantine Empire came under Muslim rule. and Sassanid Empire?
• Interchangeable use of Khosrau II and Khosrau without explanation, esp in lead Khosrau proceeded to declare war
  • I feel like this is because I after mention his number, it is extraneous to continue to cite his number. This is because he was the only Khosrau that is involved in the events.
• Unfortunately, Maurice's strict fiscal measures to offset this debt made him unpopular with the army, as he cut their pay. Unfortunately? POV? Propose merge with preceding sentence to improve flow.
• the two factions of the Hippodrome Unclear, even in the context of the link. Two factions of what (charioteers I assume)? A great opportunity for adding some 'flavour' to the text because of the ludicrous nature of the move.
• Maurice attempted to defend Constantinople by arming the Blues and the Greens, the two factions of the Hippodrome, but they proved ineffective, forcing Maurice to flee. Soon afterwards however, Maurice was intercepted and killed by the soldiers of Phocas. improve 'flow' throughout, for example "...the two factions of the Hippodrome, but they proved ineffective. Maurice fled, but was intercepted and killed."
• Upon the murder of Maurice, the Byzantine governor of Mesopotamia, Narses rebelled against Phocas and seized Edessa. ...clarify Mesopotamia is a Byzantine province at this stage (only implied) and Edessa is a city. It should not be necessary to follow all links to understand the text as it stands.
• Very good linking, btw.
• Phocas told the general Germanus to besiege Edessa instructed Germanus?
• Phocas told the general Germanus to besiege Edessa, prompting Narses to request help from Khosrau II, who happily obliged to help avenge Maurice, his "friend and father."[10][11] Using Maurice's death as a casus belli, Khosrau attacked the Eastern Roman Empire and tried to reconquer Armenia and Mesopotamia. All sorts of redundancy here, rephrase.
• Please explain this in a logical way: Narses rebels, Phocas sends Germanus, Narses asks for help from Persians, Khosrau invades, Germanus dies, Phocas sends Leontius to Edessa, Narses escapes. New concept: Phocas sends second army to Mesopotamia which is defeated at Dara, Phocas loses prestige. Completely new concept: Phocas forcibly converts Jews. This seems totally out of context - religion clearly plays a huge role in this conflict (and subsequent conflicts), but is not explained anywhere.
  • The first part I feel makes sense. I will try to add a transition there, but can't at the moment because I don't have my sources with me. Also, the main reason I don't mention religion explicitly to explain stuff is because I guess my sources don't quite explain it all.
• Still, transfer of the forces commanded by Comentiolus had been delayed, allowing the Persians to advance further. Persians advancing into Armenia? Macedonia? And where is central Anatolia?
• In the meantime, the Sassanids took advantage of this civil war to conquer Syria and launch raids into Asia Minor itself Map needed here.
• which was thought impregnable. Only by the Byzantines, I assume :)
• Heraclius attempted to stop the invasion at Antioch... How did this allow them to move swiftly in all directions? I assume south down the coast and west.
  • I'll add more here when I get to my sources
• even meeting with Saint Theodore of Sykeon to ask for a blessing for the battle "...and met with..."
• The local resistance to the Persians in Syria and Palestine was not strong Reason? Jewish persecution? Distance from capital? Recent acquisition?
  • I believe it was the Monophysite thing, Jewish help, and the loss of the army. I'll check this to make sure
• another 35,000 were taken prisoner to Persia, including the Patriarch Zacharias I assume "35000 were enslaved".
• The loss of these relics was thought to be a clear mark of divine displeasure;[20] many blamed the Jews for this misfortune. By the Byzantines, I assume. Why the Jews?
  • Will also clarify this when I get my sources
• After lasting one year, resistance in Alexandria supposedly collapsed after a traitor told the Persians of an unused canal, allowing the Persians to storm the city. Nicetas fled to Cyprus along with Patriarch John, his close associate. Resistance supposedly collapsed? John was his lover? This is sort of implied. Otherwise, what is his significance?
  • I said supposedly because it was a story of the collapse, but isn't too verified. I think I removed this confusion. Patriarch John wasn't his lover, but he was part of the reason Nicetas had an easy time in Egypt. I think I had this in Nicetas' article. I added a little note here.
• General note: Please be explicit where the historical record is unclear.
  • I have added this to a few places.
• Things began to look even grimmer for the Byzantines when Chalcedon fell in 617 to Shahin, making the Persians visible even from Constantinople. "even more grim"?
• the Persians visible even from Constantinople. No need for "even".
• Still, the Persians were soon forced to withdraw. Any reason given? I assume supply problems.
  • I think so. But I need to check. DemonicInfluence (talk) 22:40, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
• Ancyra, an important military base, fell in either 620 or 622... Confusing in context. Perhaps "The Persians were still ascendant, however, taking... in ... and... in..."

Maps

• Planned as the first in a series. Suggestions welcome. Dhatfield (talk) 05:52, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Nice work. A couple of first-glance suggestions: add a few more province boundaries and names, at least for the East, and definitively more cities (Antioch, Caesarea, Jerusalem at least) and region names (Palestine, Iberia, Atropatene, Albania, etc). Also, a few corrections on boundaries should be in order: for Spain, this map shows better boundaries, for the Balkans, in 600 they had not been overrun by the Slavs yet. In fact, Maurice's generals had just completed a series of wars that had re-established Byzantine authority throughout. I realize this is comes straight from Kaegi's book and is meant to be a composite map for the entire work, but if we want to be accurate, well... Also, another concern: since this map is lifted almost straight from Kaegi's book, there should be an enquiry about possible copyright infringement with some user knowledgeable on these matters. Regards, Constantine ✍ 09:54, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestions, but as you note this may be quite irrelevant: I have been burned and I'm very serious about copyright. As noted on the diagram page under Source and Author, my work is derived from this map which has "Transferred from en.wikipedia; transferred to Commons by User:michele casarella. (Original text : I (الله أكبرMohammad Adil) created this work entirely by myself." given as the source and he applied the CCSA 3.0 license.

To be clear, I have never read nor seen anything by Kaegi: I had not heard of him before today. As you can imagine, if Mohammad is in violation of copyright, I am going to be seriously unamused. I'd like to know how you know that his work was lifted from a given work, since it appears to be pertinent to establishing or refuting Mohammed's claim. For that matter, how can we establish that this map is not derived from a copyrighted work. Dhatfield (talk)

I should add some light to this question. I had thought that this article was bit low on graphics and I asked Mohammad Adil to help me make some maps since he seemed pretty knowledgeable and had made many maps earlier. Since I was rather clueless about the correct policies of getting maps, I asked him specifically to recreate some maps from Kaegi's book, assuming that if this was against wiki policy that he would speak up. He agreed to do the task and created the maps, including the map mentioned above. They are very similar to Kaegi's book. I hope I haven't created a massive mess. :( DemonicInfluence (talk) 19:27, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Ouch. When we dig, it appears that practically every map regarding this topic should be subject to a RfD.

• This map states "Data based on maps in atlases and the internet and on contemporary sources". In my opinion this is insufficient to establish the author's right to put this work in the public domain.
• This map states "Topographical map of Constantinople during the Byzantine period. Main map source: R. Janin, Constantinople Byzantine. Developpement urbain et repertoire topographique. Road network and some other details based on Dumbarton Oaks Papers 54; data on many churches, especially unidentified ones, taken from the University of New York's The Byzantine Churches of Istanbul project. Other published maps and accounts of the city have been used for corroboration." New York's The Byzantine Churches of Istanbul states "© 2001, Institute of Fine Arts, New York University", therefore this featured picture is in violation of copyright.
• This map states "Province & client state outlines based on: Atlas of Classical History, Routledge 1985, pp. 160-162; History Map of Europe, Year 1 from Euratlas". Both of these are, as far as I know, copyrighted sources and therefore this derivative cannot be released into the public domain. Further, this map is a grandfather of the map Roman_East_50-en.svg, and it's origins are suspect - implicitly given as "Own work", without proper copyright, therefore all derivatives can be assumed to be in violation of copyright.
• This map gives as description "The Byzantine Empire and its provinces (themes) at the death of Basil II in 1025 AD. Sources: Haldon, John: Warfare, State And Society In The Byzantine World 565-1204 (Routledge 1999) ISBN 1-85728-494-1, Maps IV (pp. 76-77) and VIII (pp. 82-83); Kazhdan, Alexander (Ed.): Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium (OUP 1991) ISBN 978-0-19-504652-6, pp. 354, 2034-2035; Holmes, Catherine: Basil II and the Governance of Empire (976-1025) (OUP 2005) ISBN 978-0-19-927968-5, Maps in pp. 305, 397, 431; Shepherd, William R.: Europe and the Byzantine Empire, AD 1000" Clearly, this map draws on copyrighted sources and is therefore cannot be given a CCSA 3.0 license by it's author.
• All credit to Constantine for listing his sources, but sadly this does not circumvent the copyright restrictions.
• Every map by this author is listed as "Own work" and highly suspect in terms of sources.
• Similarly, this editor does not properly list his sources.
• Either the positions of historical borders and cities is knowledge taken to be 'in the poblic domain' or we are in serious trouble. Dhatfield (talk) 02:15, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Erm, for my maps, I admit that copyright guidelines escape my understanding, but I do not think that using a number of maps as a basis of reference is copyright violation, no more than using published books to write an article is a violation. Not one of these maps is a direct copy of the original maps, and in all cases considerable work has gone into finding and verifying as many sources so that the result is far more complete than the original maps (the Constantinople map being the prime example). Obviously one must have a reliable source to work on (and stating these sources is required by FA criteria, for example), otherwise it would be off the top of my head, like countless such ridiculously fantastic, vague or otherwise unreliable "maps" in Commons. I also do not think that city/church positions or borders can really be considered "copyrighted". If using sources in this way is a problem, then we are indeed in trouble, for a) we must delete any serious map based on any actual sources whether pictorial or written, and b) it means that it is better to cheat than be honest about the sources. I am greatly troubled here, someone who knows about copyright should enlighten us. Constantine ✍ 13:21, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Resolved

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)

• This is good news. InThe Roman Eastern Frontier and the Persian Wars (Part II, 363-630 AD) by Dodgeon, Greatrex, and Lieu, there is a nice and detailed map with cities in the frontier. It even a detailed map of the frontier in 591 in Mesopotamia and Armenia. I don't know if it's allowed, but if it is, I could scan those maps and hopefully you can incorporate them into your created maps. Hope that helps. DemonicInfluence (talk) 20:44, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

That's a relief :)! BTW, I also have a large number of maps in digital form, scanned from books or taken from e-books, if either of you want any particular area or period, send me a note. Constantine ✍ 22:49, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm amazed this was even a debate. Maps are maps. You can't "copyright" the information of a map. A direct photocopy (from a book, for example) is different. That's copying the exact aesthetics of a copyrighted image, which would be an infringement. Thanks for the laugh, guys.--Tataryn77 (talk) 02:42, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Good job

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)

Incomplete

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)

This probably isn't talked about in any of the books because precise knowledge of the happenings is something is that very difficult to obtain. However, it is said that at the end of the war "Under the terms of the peace treaty, the Byzantines regained all their lost territories, their captured soldiers, a war indemnity, and most importantly for them, the True Cross and other relics that were lost in Jerusalem in 614." I'm pretty sure this is when most of the conquered cities in Syria and Antolia were returned. Hope that answers your concerns.DemonicInfluence (talk) 19:31, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

outdated sources

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)

Khusro's letter

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."

• I don't have any ability to acquire sources at the moment. If you want want to update the letter from a reliable source, then feel free to do so. DemonicInfluence (talk) 14:35, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

I too doubted the validity of this after reading the first line, at least in the case of referring to himself, that's not the way Sasanian kings described themselves. --Z 13:19, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

"Sassanid" move

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 apologize, i have just seen the move proposal and i don't mind. The reason for restoring "Sassanid" was because HistoryofIran is a banned user, so i tried to undo some of his controversial edits (apparently not so much controversial).Greyshark09 (talk) 18:17, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Demeaning Muslim victories

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:

1. Muslim wished the Byzantine to win because that are People of the Book like them, and they were against polytheist Persian (See Surat Ar-Rum).
2. By any measures, it's very difficult and daring for newly unified tribes to fight two great empires at the same time.
3. Even after Byzantine–Sasanian War, Muslims were outnumbered in many battles, like in the Battle of Yarmuk, were the Byzantine forces are about 240,000 and Muslims were only 45,000!!!--Maher27777 (talk) 11:27, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Not everything in history revolves around a pro- or anti-Islamic stance. It is a simple fact and evident to anyone with common sense that fighting 25 years of war leaves a state exhausted. Heraclius had to scrape the bottom of the barrel and rely on the support of Turkic allies to turn the tide of the war, and the Persians likewise suffered heavy casualties and were debilitated by civil war for years after. Neither of this made the Muslim conquests inevitable, and no one doubts neither the zeal and courage of the Muslim armies nor the ability of men like Khalid ibn al-Walid, who certainly ranks among the greatest commanders in history, but it is clear that if the Muslims had attacked, say, in the 520s, the resistance they would have faced would have been much, much greater. As for the disparity of forces, you should not always believe what the primary sources say. Armies of 100,000 or more were very rare outside of China for the medieval period. The numbers reported for the Byzantines at Yarmouk are ridiculous, 240,000 would have been half the army of the entire Roman Empire at its height, not of a suffering eastern half that had just emerged from the most destructive war it had ever fought. More reliable and cautious scholars put both armies at about equal level, ca. 20,000 men tops. Constantine ✍ 12:03, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Then, a question should be asked that why the two empires didn't consolidate there efforts against the emerging Muslim threat? There two answers I think:

1. The differences between two empires as very big, and this war and previous wars are evidence.
2. Both empires underestimated the strength of Muslims, and thought that every one can alone deal with Muslims!Maher27777 (talk) 15:15, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

The second is closer to the truth, I think. Islam was not yet seen as a new phenomenon, still less as a distinct religion, but rather a Christian sect, by the Byzantines at least, and there was nothing to suggest that the Muslim conquests would be any more permanent than the Persian ones had been twenty years before. However, the deciding factor in the response of the two empires is clearly exhaustion. After Yarmouk for Byzantium and Qadisiya for Persia, both states quite literally had no military reserves left, which was a direct result of their mutual struggle which had exhausted both their manpower and their treasuries. Byzantium was able to use the Taurus mountains as an effective barrier to Muslim expansion (and had an impregnable capital in Constantinople), for a variety of reasons Persia failed to do the same with the Zagros mountains. Constantine ✍ 16:51, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Not to confuse the conversation, but the Sasanian Empire also suffered from internal political/dynastic issues as well as lack of manpower(per Pourshariati). --Kansas Bear (talk) 21:02, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

To clarify, the Romans probably thought Islam was a Jewish sect, not a Christian one. --Tataryn77 (talk) 02:25, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110805093618/http://www.deremilitari.org/resources/pdfs/dennis2.pdf to http://www.deremilitari.org/resources/pdfs/dennis2.pdf

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) 15:30, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Attack on Cyprus

This source (page 33) mentions successful attack "on Cyprus (around 619)" by Sassanid seaborne forces. --Z 16:34, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Khosrow's letter to Heraclius

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)

"Marginal Byzantine victory"

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)

Both sides suffered massive casualties, and neither side saw any territorial gains, but the Byzantines not only managed to reclaim relics looted from their lands, but by the end of the war they had damaged the Sassanian army to a more severe degree than the damage dealt to their own army in the early stages, and as a result they were able to loot city after city with impunity. Those gains were kept in the peace treaty. Then there were the after-effects; the return of the relics and the riches gained lead to a triumph for Heraclius and immense praise being heaped upon him, and it seemed as if "a new golden age" was coming to the Empire. However, while Heraclius's rule was strengthened by the end of the war, Kavadh II's reign ended shortly after in civil war. In short, while both sides lost nearly everything, the Byzantine Empire was able to reclaim their most important losses and came off with better internal stability than their Persian counterparts. Mr. Phorcys (talk) 23:24, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Sassanid conquest of Asia Minor

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: Šahr­varāz took Antioch, Apamea, Caesarea, Mazaca, Da­mascus, Jerusalem (whence he sent the “true cross” to Persia), and, in 616, Egypt. Šāhēn 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)

Wikaviani, thanks, but I have some involvement with, and knowledge about, this article and the articles on the persons and events related here. Iranica may use that to sum up Shahin's operations, but conquest in the full sense of the term it was not; conquest implies pacification and administration, and that was never the case for all or even most of Anatolia. Even if we accept that Shahin conquered "all" of Anatolia (even the coastlands, for which Persian occupation is almost never mentioned) rather than simply driving straight for Chalcedon, the present article makes clear (also with a reference) that "Still, the Persian forces soon withdrew, probably to focus on their invasion of Egypt". So this was a "conquest" as part of a military operation, not "conquest" as in Egypt, which was annexed and governed by Persia for about a decade. Hence it was an episode in Anatolia's history, just as the Umayyad and later Abbasid invasions were, without really representing a rupture in its Byzantine period ("Byzantine Anatolia"). Only the most hardened nationalist would suggest that this episode necessitates the creation of a "Sasanian Anatolia" period... Constantine ✍ 08:22, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

I would have to agree with Cplakidas. Its one of those examples in which a general Iranica article (its a general article about Byzantine-Sasanian relations) isn't precise enough, and more reading from other books/Iranica articles is needed in order to understand the complexity of the matter. If one were to solely read that article, I can understand why he/she would think that the Sasanians actually established a sort of administration/government/"rule" in Asia Minor/Anatolia in 602-628. But this is incorrect. Maybe later, when new discoveries/findings are published, we will have to rehearse this matter. Until then, its simply wrong. Wikaviani, remember the talk we had recently about Iranica vis-a-vis Nader Shah? You could compare it to that. :-) - LouisAragon (talk) 10:15, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi to both of you guys and thank you for the time you spent answering me. First, clearly, i'm not a proponent of any nationalism here, since the bulk of my contributions includes fighting vandalism and adding sources for unsourced (or weakly sourced) articles. Second, i agree with both of you when you say that Sasanian control over Asia Minor was by far less firm than over Egypt, but modestly, i have spent some sleepless nights reading historical books and websites, and quite clearly, the Sasanians conquered Anatolia. I have much respect for the far more experienced editors you guys are and i followed LouisAragon's advice :

The Oxford Handbook of Iranian History :

https://books.google.fr/books?id=KjQ_AwAAQBAJ&pg=PT256&lpg=PT256&dq=&source=bl&ots=b6fxz-iyMu&sig=Li9rvOs5vEqWvZLXg49vryiUL6U&hl=fr&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjm7vG90u7bAhWLWBQKHa1CAD84ChDoAQg2MAI#v=onepage&q=khosrow%20ii%20conquest%20of%20asia%20minor&f=false

I quote : "His two generals Shahin and Shahrbaraz conquered Syria, Palestine, Anatolia and Egypt and even went as far as Libya"

Yes Louis, i remember our talk about Nader Shah's victory at Karnal, but i think we have a different case here. The Sassanian forces invaded Asia Minor In 615, the Byzantine forces only began repulsing them at the Siege of Constantinople (in 626), therefore, Sassanians hold Anatolia for about 10 years (while Nader gave up his claim of vassalage over Muhammad shah as soon as he returned in Persia). More, Nader's army did not go further than Indus, while the Sassanian forces overran Asia Minor. Removing "Medieval anatolia" category and writing "Byzantine Anatolia" instead is, according to me (and the sources i provided), wrong, but as i said above, you're far more experienced users here than i am, and even if i disagree with Cplakidas's edit, i will of course not engage in any edit war if you want to revert my edit. Take care. Best regards.---Wikaviani (talk) 11:43, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

@Wikaviani: "The Sassanian forces invaded Asia Minor In 615, the Byzantine forces only began repulsing them at the Siege of Constantinople (in 626), therefore, Sassanians hold Anatolia for about 10 years" that is precisely the impression generated by such concise overview statements, but it is erroneous (and that is why relying on such blanket statements is dangerous). I have already mentioned this above: Shahin's forces withdrew from Chalcedon and most of their "conquests" in Anatolia very soon after. There was no decade of Persian rule in any major part of Anatolia, unlike Egypt. Constantine ✍ 11:47, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Well, Cplakidas, we have sources stating that Anatolia was conquered by Sasanian forces, while you only give here your opinion (which is, of course valuable, but not a reliable source). Although this would go against what reliablze sources say, feel free to revert me, as i said above, i will not engage in any edit war (i may only engage in edit warring to deal with vandalism and obviously, you're far from being a vandal). Best regards.---Wikaviani (talk) 15:15, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Erm, no, it is not an "opinion", sorry. Please read this article carefully and look up the references to it. 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. To put this canard to rest for all times, here's how Clive Foss, the most eminent scholar of medieval Anatolia and the transformation it experienced going from Late Antiquity into the Middle Ages, sums up the Persian presence during the conflict (The Persians in Asia Minor and the End of Antiquity, pp. 722-728). Emphasis is mine:

• "In 611, the famous general Shahin led a Persian army into the interior of Asia Minor for the first time in more than three centuries....Shahin marched to Caesarea in Cappadocia...But in the summer [of 612]... they forced their way through the besieging force, leaving the Byzantines beaten and scattered, and the city in flames behind them." That is the first of Shahin's invasions, which stopped at Caesarea
• "In 613...The Persians moved on to occupy Tarsus and all Cilicia, leaving their adversaries confined within the Taurus....The only obstacle to the swift conquest of Asia Minor was the desire of the Persians to absorb the richer provinces to the south." pretty self-explanatory; Foss goes on to emphasize that what accounts survive show that until then the countryside of Anatolia was largely unaffected
• "In 615, Shahin and his troops crossed the whole of Asia Minor, invested Chalcedon and took it the following year after a long siege....Although they were soon forced to withdraw, the extent and duration of the campaign suggest that the defences of Asia Minor had collapsed." Here is the origin of the famous "conquest of Anatolia", where both the sources, common logic, and now scholarly examination make clear that it was a drive from the frontier to Chalcedon for a specific purpose, to threaten Constantinople; did this indicate Byzantine military weakness? Certainly. Does this indicate any intention of permanent conquest at this moment? No.
• "there is little information in the literary sources about Asia Minor for the years in which it lay open to Persian attack. The next recorded event is the capture of Ancyra in 620 or 622." So Ancyra, one of the strategically most important cities in Anatolia, lying in the centre of the peninsula and controlling the main west-east road, was captured in 620 or 622. This again shows that Shahin's 615/616 "conquest of Anatolia" was no such thing. The subsequent conquest of Rhodes, "which the Persians took in 622 or 623" is more interesting, because it implies either a naval force or the conquest of the southern coastline at least up until Pamphylia.
• During "The next phase of the war ... little is heard of Asia Minor. On 5 April 622, the first expedition began when the emperor set sail for Pylae in Bithynia and proceeded to central Asia Minor, perhaps Caesarea. After skirmishes with the Persians, who had taken up winter quarters somewhere in the Pontus". This shows that the Persians were still active mostly in eastern Anatolia (the Pontus), and that Bithynia and much of Cappadocia was still either in Byzantine hands or not actively occupied by the Persians. This probably includes Ancyra, BTW, since Heraclius had to have passed by it on his way.
• The years after that are a repeat of same, with Heraclius being able to cross Anatolia unopposed and withdraw to Cappadocia when confronted by Shahrbaraz in 625. One does not withdraw to a country "conquered" by one's enemy. In 626, "the Persians again crossed all Asia Minor for a great onslaught on the capital in alliance with the Avars.... At the time of the last campaign of the war (627-628) in which Heraclius advanced within a few miles of Ctesiphon and gained complete victory, Shahrbaraz and the last Persian forces left Asia Minor, never to return."
• To sum up, "the evidence of the literary sources...show that it took the Persians ten years of hard fighting to establish their supremacy on the marches of Asia Minor, although they had already broken through into central Anatolia and occupied Caesarea for a year. After the defeats of Heraclius near Antioch in 613, they were free to overrun Asia Minor, but concentrated their attacks instead on the richer regions to the south. Only in 615 did they cross the peninsula to attack and conquer Chalcedon, an achievement which they repeated in 626. The intervening decade...is the most obscure....it is at least apparent that the Persians were able to advance by land to take Ancyra and ravage Cappadocia and Galatia, and by sea to attack Cyprus and conquer Rhodes. Their forces were in Cappadocia to harass the efforts of Heraclius in 622 and 625, and seem to have been in firm control of Mesopotamia. There is no indication, however, that they planned or accomplished the occupation of the interior or the west of Anatolia; only their capture of Ancyra suggests that they may have desired to retain control over the main military highway across the peninsula....The incursions into Asia Minor seem to have been raids as much as invasions, but raids of a particularly destructive kind."

The last paragraph sums it up well, I think, and is BTW almost word for word applicable to the Arab raids of the 8th and 9th centuries, where again, no-one speaks of an "Arab conquest of Asia Minor". Cheers, Constantine ✍ 16:02, 25 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." : 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)

Didn't the Byzantines prevail in the end?

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):

• "After his victory over Xusro II Parvez (590-628) and his advance all the way to Ktesiphon at the beginning of the year 628 the Byzantine emperor had decided to widraw his troops" (p.148)
• "Immediately after he had succeeded to the throne, the Persian ruler Kavad II initiated peace negociations with Heraclius" (p.148)

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:

• "Its festive restoration (....) made it manifest to the world that a Christian Byzantium had triumphed over a Zorastrian Sasanian Empire, and this triumph had been sealed by the foedus of 628" (p.151)

He also mentions that Heraclius did not want to overly weaken the Sasanian Empire in note 157 p.150:

• "Heracles did not make the same mistake as Justinian. He neither wished to humiliate nor to weaken Persia." (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]. पाटलिपुत्र (talk) 19:27, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

I wonder why you only picked those sentences from Rome and Persia in Late Antiquity: Neighbours and Rivals while leaving this out (from the very same page NB):

• "There is no doubt that the terms of 628 primarily aimed at a restoration of the status quo ante bellum."

Or this:

• "Heraclius thus also expressed his desire for peace and offered terms that even from a Sasanian perspective were moderate and acceptable". (p. 150)

Or this passage, which you copy-pasted only half. The actual passage is;

• "One further aspect must have been particularly important for Heraclius, namely the return of the Holy Cross, which the Sasanians had carried off when they conquered Jerusalem in 614. Its festive restoration in Jerusalem, probably in March 630, earned Heraclius great prestige and made it manifest to the world that a Christian Byzantium had triumphed over a Zoroastrian Sasanian Empire, and this triumph had been sealed by the foedus of 628."

The author of the chapter makes no impression of a Byzantine victory. Just a symbolic contemporary triumph for Heraclius as he restored their belongings (the Holy Cross).

The vast majority reliable sources make it clear that the war ended in status quo ante bellum. So that's what we write here as well. Per WP:RS and WP:DUE.

- LouisAragon (talk) 02:51, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

"(...) is a bit like arguing that Japan and Germany did not loose World War II because they essentially retained their frontiers in the end"

Eh? Germany lost swaths of its territory according to the peace of 1945, concluded after an unconditional surrender. Swaths of "integral" German territory, including historic Prussia, were lost. These territories had all been acquired by Germany "way" before the war started. Same goes for Japan, which had started to build its empire long before it joined the Axis. After the war ended, Germany had to cede alot of its pre-war territory, and even remained occupied for years by the Allies. Its a ridiculous comparison, as none of these conditions imposed on Germany are remotely comparable to the situation at the end of the Byzantine-Sasanian War of 602-628.

"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".

-- Piotrowicz, Ryszard W.; Blay, Sam K.N. (1997). The Unification of Germany in International and Domestic Law p. 45

- LouisAragon (talk) 02:51, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Hummmmm....

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:

• "Between 602 and 628 the last of the series of Perso-Byzantine wars was fought. It ended in the Byzantine victory."
  (in Arshad, Mohammad (1967). An Advanced History of Islam. Ideal Publications. p. 93.)
• The war "ended with a Byzantine victory under the leadership of Emperor Heraclius in 628."
  (in Curta, Florin; Holt, Andrew (2016). Great Events in Religion: An Encyclopedia of Pivotal Events in Religious History [3 volumes]. ABC-CLIO. p. 375. ISBN 9781610695664.)
• "By the year 628 it had decisively defeated its old rival and was definitely in control of the East."
  (in Gregory, Timothy E. (2011). A History of Byzantium. John Wiley & Sons. p. 173. ISBN 9781444359978.)
• "the peace treaty, signed in April 628, that reflects the Byzantine victory."
  (in Pottier, Henri; Foss, Clive (2004). Le monnayage de la Syrie sous l'occupation perse (610-630). CNRS. p. 126. ISBN 9782271061157.)

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]. पाटलिपुत्र (talk) 17:24, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

The other wikipedia are not reliable sources. As LouisAragon said, the vast majority of specialized sources are actually underlining a draw. Please note that among the sources you provided below, the only source written by a specialized historian is the source number 3. One can speak of "Byzantine victory" if the Byzantine Empire could win something it did not possess before the war. They repelled a massive Sasanian invasion, this caused some over enthusiastic authors to describe their successful couter attack as a "victory". Here on Wikipedia, we must take into account what the majority of sources say and not give too much weight to a few sources.---Wikaviani (talk) 21:05, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Could you actually give me sources that are really saying "this war was a draw"? So far, what I have seen here only seems like typical WP:OR: a few editors using the fact that frontiers returned to their original state or that both sides were exhausted to argue that the Byzantines did not win this war, whereas all the sources I've seen so far count the conflict as a Byzantine victory. पाटलिपुत्र (talk) 04:53, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Don't wanna get too much involved in this discussion. The Byzantines were successful in repelling the Sasanian invasion yes, but they couldn't continue their success further due to being exhausted, and eventually both empires made peace and a return to the Status quo ante bellum was made. The reason it turned out even worse for the Sasanians was due to internal problems (which was started by Kavadh II who overthrew Khosrow II during the war and made peace, and which eventually resulted in a civil war not long after) and a plague that killed half of the population in their western regions, not due to the Byzantines. --HistoryofIran (talk) 22:35, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Philippicus campaign in 613

According to the current version of the article,

"Philippicus, an old general of Maurice's, was appointed as commander-in-chief, but he proved himself incompetent against the Persians, avoiding engagements in battle."

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)

RfC: Who won the Byzantine–Sasanian War of 602–628?

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 पाटलिपुत्र 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:

• "A comprehensive victory over Persia"
• "The forces of Byzantium prevailed"
• "Victory over Xusro II Parvez"
• "A Christian Byzantium had triumphed over a Zorastrian Sasanian Empire"
• "Final victory of Heraclius over the Persians"
• "Heraclius crushed the Persians"
• "628 Victory over Persia"
• "Heraclius's victory in 627/628" "Decisive victory in Persia"
• "Heraclius' victory and imposition of peace terms, in 628"

पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 05:53, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

From a historical perspective, especially with the benefit of hindsight (i.e., the imminent Muslim conquests), it is difficult to speak of a clear-cut victory. However, it is also clear that in the end, the Byzantines did prevail: at one point, the Persian armies stood at the gates of Constantinople, but by war's end, the situation was reversed. Even if a lot of Byzantine territory was still under Persian occupation, the dynamic of the war had shifted decisively, and Heraclius was able to engineer a political solution that essentially gave him everything he wanted. Having survived such an onslaught and restored the status quo ante was certainly a victory for the Byzantines, since they were the defenders and given how far the Persians had advanced at various points during the war. This is precisely what the various sources describing this as a Byzantine victory attest to. Constantine ✍ 20:32, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Use of Iran?

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)

It matters not what names were used in 1935, we're living 2020. Iran is frequently used in scholarship used when referring to a pre-1935 Iran. It was the official name of the Sasanian Empire. Also, don't revert when no conclusion has been reached. --HistoryofIran (talk) 18:29, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

I'm not saying that we should follow 1935 usage; I'm saying that English usage changed in 1935 (and is still being used today in respect to the modern nation state name). Could you please give sources for your claims? Thanks. Contributor tom (talk) 18:36, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Here are some for starters [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17]. See also [18] and [19]. --HistoryofIran (talk) 18:51, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the links. They show a shift from "Persia" to "Iran" in historical contexts, although they also use phrases such as "Persian Empire in Ancient Iran". However, while all these references use "Iran" or "Iranian" in their descriptions or subtitles, none of them use the phrase "Sasanian Empire of Iran". Three of them do use the phrase "Sasanian Iran". How about A) changing "Sasanian Empire" to "Sasanian Iran" in this article's first sentence (keeping the link); B) rewording paragraph 2 of this article to use "Iran" and "Iranians" (currently 1 occurrence) instead of "Persia" and "Persians" (currently 5 occurrences); and C) within the body of the article, at the first use of "Persia", change it to "Persia (Ancient Iran)"? This approach makes the article intro consistent; prevents reader confusion due to the mixed usage of "Persia" and "Iran" in the article body; and avoids rewriting the 100+ uses of "Persia" or "Persian". Would this work? Contributor tom (talk) 22:45, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Well, this is probably no surprise coming from me, but I would support the change of all usages of "Persia(n)" to "Iran(ian)". I don't mind rewriting it all. It's not an alien word anymore when talking history. Give it a few more years and it will overtake "Persia" even more. "Why" may someone ask - well, because it's a lot more accurate, with "Persia" posing confusing issues. --HistoryofIran (talk) 23:42, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Most of the examples given above actually do not quite equate or replace "Persian" with "Iranian", but rather focus on the characteristics during various historical periods of what is known today geographically as Iran, such as in "Sasanian Iran", "East Iran in Late Antiquity" etc... Since the usage of the word "Iran" in non-Iranian languages such as English is a recent and modern occurence, there will always be a major resistance to relabeling all ancient occurences as "Iranian" rather than the tradional "Persian", or to qualifying ancient Empires or territories as Iranian, as in the rarely used "Sasanian Empire of Iran" [20]. To most outside of Iran, "Iran" is only modern Iran. The recent failed attempt at renaming the Muslim conquest of Persia to "Arab conquest of Iran" is in many ways an example of this [21]. Also, there seems to be an annoying tendency in some circles to try to rewrite history by renaming as much as possible as "Iranian" in ancient history and geography, and that does look like some nationalistic "pan-Iranism" or some attempts by the modern Iranian state to systematically claim ancient glory. पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 06:38, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

I do agree that the expression "the Sasanian Empire of Iran" [22], although not completely unheard of, sounds weird and redundant. पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 18:45, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean. Well, yes, obviously not all instances of "Persian" is gonna get removed, since there was a still a southwestern Iranian ethnic group at that time known as "Persians". Other than that, scholars nowadays do indeed use "Iran" when referring to the country itself (WP:COMMONNAME), as shown in the sources. As I said, using "Persia(n)" poses issues. For example, it would be strange to call the nobility (or even soldiers) of the Sasanians for "Persian", when in reality majority of them were Parthians (mentioned in some of the sources), with some Armenians and Mesopotamians as well (also mentioned in some of the sources). Or use "Persian" for Medians, Bactrians or northern Iranians (Daylamites etc) for that matter. "Persian" and "Iranian" are not synonymous. "Persia" is an outdated term for the country/historic super-region and the other is current and also preferred by the modern sources. "Nationalistic pan-Iranism" by the modern Iranian state? Wat? Are they releasing those books? Also, you do know that you're speaking of the Islamic Republic of Iran, right? Using "Iranian" is clearly not rewriting history at all, as the sources I linked literally shows. Is this "annoying tendency" actually a thing? Or just what you personally think? You're coming with bold claims with no source(s) to back it up, as was the case with all the opposers in Muslim conquest of Persia, who refused to look at the fact that majority of scholarship uses "Iran", not "Persia". Frankly, it was ridiculous that the move didn't happen, and once again really shows how amazing the admins on this site can be. --HistoryofIran (talk) 11:30, 17 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)

I agree, except for A), which I think we should keep as Sasanian Empire, without the current "of Iran", which is unnecessary and problematic. पाटलिपुत्र Pat (talk) 21:19, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Ngl, I can barely see the difference between the first and second proposal. Anyhow, I've already said my piece, and shown my sources. --HistoryofIran (talk) 21:43, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

The words "Iran" and Persia can both be used, at least from the Sasanians onwards. Encyclopedia Iranica states : "The word ērān is first attested in the titles of Ardašīr I (q.v.), founder of the Sasanian dynasty.".---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:41, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

That's certainly true for the Iranian Wikipedia. English usage is still evolving. Contributor tom (talk) 01:05, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

No Tom, Iran can indeed be used as seen from some of the examples I've shown. I have far more sources than just that which proves it, but if those I just posted don't convince you, I doubt the rest will. --HistoryofIran (talk) 08:15, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

The object here is to improve this particular article. Sometimes, when there are serious disagreements and little consensus, editors have to accept incremental improvements even if they personally feel that a larger solution would be better. I've accepted your argument that "Iran" can be used in a historical context, incorporated it into my proposals, and thanked you for the sources you provided. Accusing me of not doing this is not constructive. I am also mindful that "Persia" is still present in lots of *English* discussion and there has been some resistance to whole-sale replacement of "Persia" with "Iran". Contributor tom (talk) 23:12, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Misuse of sources

@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 did a cursory search of Pisidia and Alexander and found nothing on page 114. I found this on page 177:

• "Such works were both less and more than historical sources: they were literature. Christian classicism flourished into the seventh century. Stephanos of Alexandria (a native of Athens) was appointed by the emperor Herakleios (AD610–642) to teach philosophy in Constantinople; the poet Georgios of Pisidia combined Biblical and epic images in praising the emperor’s campaigns;"

Nothing else even close to mentioning Herakleios and Georgios of Pisidia.--Kansas Bear (talk) 01:42, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Sources for FA

I am looking for reliable websites. If there is anyone that can help thank you! Jishiboka1 (talk) 09:37, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

"Siege of Caesarea (612)" at Wikidata: BIG problem

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.

1. Is the event so important as to grant a red link in that position?
2. Wrong name: there are several Caesareas, and at least one more, Caesarea Maritima, played a part in this war. So "Caesarea" is insufficient, it's about Caesarea Mazaca, or Caesarea in Cappadocia.
3. The event, or year: from what I gather from Kaeli, the Persians took it in 611 (!), and the Byzantines probably retook it in 612, not before the retreating Persians burning it down. So what/which "siege" are we talking about? Did the Persians besiege it in 611, or did they take it by storm, surrender, or treason? Didn't the Byzantines besiege it right away (that would mean: 611-12)? Was the 612 recovery part of a siege, or a larger campaign? Unfortunately, the relevant "History" section (Caesarea (Mazaca)#Roman and Byzantine rule) doesn't have a single word about the 611-12 events either, although they sound like total destruction was the result. Altogether, the name "Siege of Caesarea (612)", of a non-existent article, doesn't seem as yet justified. Arminden (talk) 12:00, 18 July 2022 (UTC)