Talk:Byzantine–Sasanian wars

Start

Its a start that I hope and expect will be modified. In the mean time, I will try to make some maps refelecting the front in the various wars.

I also named the first part of the conflict "Transition war" because its a transition from Roman --> to Byzantine and Parthian --> to Sassanid.

The last war I called a war of exahustion. If there are official labels, we'll use those. They did both exhaust each other.

If the Falklands war was a British victory and it was a counter attack reclaiming what it had, then so was this war in which the Persians failed to take the Eastern Provinces.Tourskin 04:10, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Victory

As I already explained, teh last war is the one that counts, since its effect is the one decided the outcome - the Sassanids had over-extended themselves, were defeated at Issus and Ninevah and the Byzantine armies reached Ctesiphon, forcing the Sassanids to sue for peace. It was not a stalemate. A true stalemate is when no decisive result can be achieved, yet Ninevah and Issus were decisive victories. Besides, check out the Falklands war, there is great similarity to it here in that the Sassanids tried and failed to occupy Byzantine lands, much as the Argentines tried and failed to occupy British lands. Please discuss before changing. Tourskin 20:53, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

To quote from Britannica:

Khosrow Parvīz (Persian: “Khosrow the Victorious”) late Sāsānian king of Persia (reigned 590–628), under whom the empire achieved its greatest expansion. Defeated at last in a war with the Byzantines, he was deposed in a palace revolution and executed.

It appears that the outcome of the Byzantine-Persian war is crystal clear. If the Iranians insist on regarding it an a continuous Roman-Persian war, then this is the sole outcome. Miskin 21:03, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

How can it be a victory if your side was losing for over 20 years and then just managed to make it so that the other side accepts the pre-War boundaries? That is not a victory, it is a stalemate. Iraq did not beat Iran when Iran had to pull out of Iraqi territory as a result of the peace treaty, the Iran Iraq war is acknowledged as a stalemate. This war ended in a stalemate.

The Britannica article states that Khosrow was defeated which is correct, but the Byzantine Sassanid Wars (title of the article) was a stalemate.

Roman Emperors were defeated by Persia as well, does this mean that Persia won the war? Your edits are amazingly biased.

Emperor Julian was defeated, Valerian was defeated, etc... What do you have to say about that? Do you know how many times Byzantium was forced to sign peace treaties after decisive defeats? Infact, Byzantium at one point was paying tribute to the Sassanids yearly. What do you have to say about that?

This war was a stalement, no bias edits can change this fact. Be reasonable here.

The Sassanids did not fail to do anything. Infact, when the peace treaty was signed, almost all Byzantine territory was still in the hands of the Sassanids, including all of Anatolia (there was still a 10,000 man strong army right across the Bosphorus from Constatinople). Heraclius simply landed in Armenia and went straight for the capital. You guys dont even know the history of what you are talking about. Persia was not defeated, there were even those who insisted that the fight should go again (the Sassanids had armies in Egypt, Mesopotamia, Khorasan, Anatolia, etc...).Azerbaijani 21:18, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok this is just your opinion, which despite how much I respect, it cannot count as a source. If you're not convinced by Britannica then I'll come back with more citations later. Though this really is common knowledge. You're using the same logic that would apply on a football game. Winning a battle is one thing, winning a war is another, and there's a very clear distinction between the two. One battle can be sufficient to judge a war, no matter how many battles were lost beforehand. Miskin 21:28, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Where does Britannica say that the Perso-Roman wars was fought with a Byzantine victory? Are you kidding me, the only person with a POV is you. You even have to resort to distorting a Britannica quote, which has nothing to do with this topic, in order keep the POV in the article.

The Perso-Roman conflict was a series of wars which spanned 8 centuries. So how can you claim that the Byzantines won the entire conflict simply by "winning" one war? This is hilarious, and evidence of your bias.Azerbaijani 21:38, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually Britannica separates the war of Persia againt Rome, and Persia against Byzantium, i.e. the split that you have been opposing. The 8-century continuous conflict view is your unsourced original thought. If you want to accuse me for having a POV then you might as well make the minimum WP:ATT effort and provide a source for your claims. Right now I've got already cited 3 sources and you have cited none, so accusing me for a POV just makes you look silly. Anyway in several articles it is stated that Byzantium defeated the Sassanians, I've only cited one. If you could be more neutral and less patriotic about this topic it's going to be easier for everyone to make contributions. Miskin 21:46, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

For example Britannica's article "Byzantine Empire" states: "Three sources of strength enabled Heraclius to turn defeat into victory"... expands. See also the Iranian sources I provided in Roman-Persian wars. Miskin 22:28, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

In addition, the outcome of the Byzantine-Persian war is reflected in the Battle of Nineveh (627). This is also verified by the Dictionary of Ancient & Medieval Warfare which calls the outcome a "decisive Byzantine victory". A contemporary Greek work written by Procopius, called the Persian War, verifies that the Byzantine-Persian conflict was regarded as a separate war even by its Byzantine contemporaries. You're only pov-pushing by denying those facts with not a single counter-reference. Miskin 22:00, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

You are assuming that the result of the last war (which was a stalemate anyways) is the same result which should be imposed on the whole conflict, which is utterly bias and incorrect.Azerbaijani 22:46, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Why don't look at teh FINAL RESULT. Hitler won the first three years of World war 2. Yet he was crushed.

The Sassanis lost because they were forced to accept Heraclius' terms. Whatabout the Falklands war? Or the Turkish war of independence, was that a draw or a victory?Tourskin 00:24, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

The previous wars were very indecisive. The Persians tried and failed to take the Byzantine lands. Ajerbajani, you are not giving any evidence whatsoever as to why it was a draw. So tell me, why? When clearly:

• The last stages were victories.
• The Persians overthrew the Persian King cos he didn't want peace so they installed someone who would make peace
• Mesopatamia remained a Byzantine as well as a Persian sphere of influence as seen in the battles against the Arabs, yet before Mesopatamia was well within Sassanid domain
• In a war, the final decisive acts determine the outcome. World War 2 is a classical example.

Counter these points if you care to do so.Tourskin 00:28, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

One more thing, Ctesiphon was sacked by the Romans numerous times, the lands of Persia was inavded numerous times (the heartland). Yet the larger Roman empire never had either of its capitals sacked and Anatalia was only occupied by the Persians briefly in the last campaign. Besides, Heraclius did not defeat the Persians by sneaking past all of their armies and heading for the capital. Look at Issus or Ninevah. Tourskin 00:34, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Do you even attempt to learn anything about the subject you are trying to cover?

The Roman Persian wars were a series of wars and conflicts, not one long gigantic war. You are trying to compare the Roman Persian Wars to a war, which is ridiculous. In the series of conflicts between Iran and the Roman Empire/Byzantine Empire, there was never a clear winner, never. Both sides won wars, both sides lost wars. Infact, if my memory serves me correctly, the majority of the wars were won by Iran, not the Romans, and many more were simply stalemates with no clear winner. You are trying to lump up 8 centuries of conflicts into the last war so that you can justify your historical bias.

Small mistake there the majority of wars were won by the romans

Ok, now I will address your last comment about Ctesiphon being sacked, Persia being invaded etc...

A) You have to understand the geography. It was much easier for Rome to invade and sack Iranian cities as Mesopotamia consists of flat, almost impossible to defend, land. All of the cities are exposed. Ctesiphon was sieged several times and sacked several times for this very reason. The same for Iran. Iran did not have a tough time sacking any of Romes cities in Mesopotamia either. Also, the invasion of the heartland you are talking about is taken out of context. This only happened once (as far as I remember) and this was because a much smaller Sassanid force lured the Byzantines deep within Iran as a strategy, and then proceeded to destroy the army (this was actually one of Romes most humiliating defeats). The Romans were made to believe that they were unstoppable, and then when the time was right, their army was almost annihilated. It is a tactic still used today (it was used by the Russians against Napoleons armies). Also, capital cities in Iran were not as important as capital cities in the West, as Iran was easily flexible enough to move its capital, and in fact many times had numerous capitals all at the same time. Ctesiphon was not as important for the Sassanids as Rome or Constantinople were for the Romans.

B) Now lets examine the Iran's invasions of Byzantium. The Sassanids, unlike the Byzantines, almost annihilated their foe completely. Not only did they take all of Byzantium's land in North Africa and the Near East, but they sieged Constantinople twice. In their previous wars, Sassanid victories were so decisive that the Byzantines were forced to pay tribute to Iran. I could go on and on. But why werent the Roman capitals ever sacked? Well, look at a map. Rome was thousands of miles away in Italy, impossible to reach. Constantinople was protected by sea, and Constantinople is acknowledged as being one of the most strategically placed cities ever. It could only be attacked by land on one side, the European side. Constantinople has been sieged by European tribes, by Iranians, by Arabs, and by Turks, and it was only when the cannon finally came into use that Constantinople fell. Its not that the Iranians could not take Constantinople because of their own faults, but because Constatinople, no matter how small of weak its defending force was, was able to hold out because of its strategic position. Infact, if Constantinople was not as strategically located as it was, Byzantium would never have lasted as long as it did. The only thing that kept the Byzantines going for so long was not their military, not their technology, not their tactics, but their capital. If it wasnt for their well defended capital, the Byzantines would have first been defeated by the European "barbarian" tribes. Also, in many of Iran's battle victories, the Iranian forces were actually outnumbered by the Byzantines.

C) Regarding Heraclius, you really dont know much do you? He landed his forced in Armenia. He had his Turkic allies raid Iran's Caucasian holdings to distract some forces, and then he went straight for Ctesiphon, fighting battles along the way.

Tourskin, I dont know who you are or what part of history you study, but you lack of knowledge on the geography and history of this conflict, as well as your Western bias, hampers you ability to debate your case.Azerbaijani 15:03, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Azerbaijani please refrain from being personal to other editors. Tourskin made valid points and you have responded with your personal opinion, which is by no means an argument here. I responded to you in Talk:Roman-Persian Wars, there's an abundancy of sources making a distinction between the conflicts. Original thought is not the answer. Miskin 17:43, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Ajerbaijani, I don't know you, but judging from your name you must be incrediably biased. You don't know me, so how can yousay I have no historical knowledge? Western bias? I am from Iraq originally and am more Persian than Romann let alone Western. Why don't you stop deviating from the main topic and try to come up with good evidence against what me and Miskin are trying to point out here.Tourskin 19:38, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Furthermoore, your problem is your instance that the capital was Rome when in fact it was long lost by the 5th century and even when recovered by Justinian, it remained as Constantinople.

Heraclius landed in Armenia good for you and for him, but thefact remains that he won the last war.

"Tribute" The tribute was a mere payment that can be found in many treaties in the medieval times, signifying no vassal status that you seem to be implying. The Byzantines invaded Persia several times and sacked Ctesiphon many times too as the Romans. Yet the Sassanids only managed to get to Anotalia in the last war and merely besisged Constantinople.

Turkish allies were used by the Byzantines, but then again the Persians coordinated their attacks with rebellions by the Jews in Palestine and the religious riots in the Levant and Egypt.

You claim that I know little, but here this evidence counters yours. Remember, this is a discussion, regardless of age. If one does not know the knowledge, than one does not discuss. But I clearly have some fair points here so please don't insult other people I am not questioning your judgement so why do you question mine?Tourskin 19:46, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Tourskin has proved his knowledge, interest and neutral stance via numerous contributions in medieval warfare. Azarbaijani uses blunt language because he can't accept the mainstream view on the outcome of Byzantine-Sassanian war. I suggest to drop the outcome question at the moment, it is of minor importance. Let's concentrate on the splitting dispute and get back to this later. I've already gathered some citations, I hope Azerbaijani will do the same. Miskin 22:02, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

In this website (http://www.lbdb.com/TMWars.cfm), the Romans are sepearted from the Byzantines after 476 AD, not a bad choice of date considering that all western scholars put that date as the end of the Western Roman empire.Tourskin 23:00, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Another one here too (http://everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=1467515) though they inaccuractley say 436 AD when it was 476 AD when rome was sacked. Quoting from the article: "The final battle was fought at Jerusalem in A.D. 630, and the Parthians were defeated. The victorius "crusaders" replaced the Holy Cross at Jerusalem, which had been taken by the Parthians. The Third Byzantine-Persian War was over, and the Byzantines now turned to reclaiming their African provinces." Okay so they say Parthians but who cares, we all agree that the Parthians are different from the Sassanids even if they were their "successors" Tourskin 23:03, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Original

If the article is disputed, should not the article remain untouched until the dispute is resolved? To that end, it should be restored to how the author (me!) had it in the first place, that is, as a Roman victory. Then after we resolve the dispute, we should change it, if necessary and with some sources and evidence. That means you Ajerbaijani! No offence intended. Tourskin 04:58, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Wow, that above comment made no sense at all. We should keep the article neutral until an agreement is made, not have the article be the way you like it until an agreement is made. What evidences have you brought that says that the Byzantines won the entire Byzantine Sassanid wars? None. How can there be a clear victory in a series of conflicts which lasted hundreds of years?Azerbaijani 15:11, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Tourskin, I won't edit the article again until the dispute is settled. Let's leave the winner/loser question of the Byzantine-Persian conflict for later. Let us concentrate on the split for the time being. I made some proposals on the other article. Miskin 17:45, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean it made no sense? If something is disputed, you don't edit it before the dispute is over. The article said Roman victory before the dispute. So it should remain that way until the dispute is over.Tourskin 19:35, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Do you know what a stalemate even is? Its when you and your opponent can not make a decisive move. Like North Korea, where the Chinese and UN were at stalemate, or World war 1. However, the Byzantines threatened Ctesiphon at the end of the war. The Persians were winning the war but then they lost. Tourskin 20:56, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Azerbaijani, I am not denying that the Sassanids were more than a match, Just the final outcome was victorius for Romans.Tourskin 04:33, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Proofread

I have made quite a bit of edits for just general proofreading. But there is still a load left. This article needs more proofreaders. I'm also going to add to the warbox, it seems rather short.--Arsenous Commodore 23:31, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh yes I forgot to say, the warbox result is rather long. It's just my opinion, but isn't it best to keep it as short as possible. How about just writing. "Re-instatement of pe-war boundaries." I'll make the change, and if no one like it, just reply and change it back. Thanks.--Arsenous Commodore 23:35, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Hell...

You know what, this war has exhausted me. Do with it as anyone will's. Tourskin 04:35, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Tourskin don't feel too bad, after all it also exhausted the Romans and Persians, LOL.--Arsenous Commodore 15:19, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Title

Does this war have a name in scholarly writing? Or is "Byzantine-Sassanid Wars" a Wikipedian neologism? Srnec 04:33, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi. No, it is not a Wikipedian neologism and it is used in scholarly sources. "Byzantine-Sassanid Wars" is just a descriptive title for a series of wars each of which has its own name.--Kober^Talk 04:42, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Clearly "Byzantine-Sassanid" is a descriptive term, but is it also a commonly applied scholarly term which can only refer to this series of conflicts? And can you provide a source? (The article is severly short on those.) Srnec 04:48, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I did a quick research through books.google. The term, in its various forms, is certainly used by scholars: "Byzantine-Sasanian Wars" (5 hits), "Byzantine-Sassanian wars" (2), "Byzantine-Sassanid wars" (2), "Byzantine-Sasanid wars" (1), "Roman-Sasanian wars" (2), "Roman-Sassanian wars" (1). Personally, I would much prefer to move the article to Roman-Sassanid Wars b/c there is still no consensus on exactly when the "Byzantine" era of Roman history began. --Kober^Talk 05:25, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

BTW, I have just found Template:Campaignbox Roman-Sassanid Wars.--Kober^Talk 05:31, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

So is Anastasian War a proper name for a specific phase of the long wars between the Byzantines and the Persians? (B/c I capitalised the "w" in war.) My only concern with the title is that it be a proper name for the war if scholars have one and that it be the best decriptive term for this series of wars if there is no common scholarly term for the whole. Srnec 17:50, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd suggest just destroying this article altogether, and allowing the Roman-Persian Wars do the whole talking. Of course we can take some of the valuable info from here and transport it. But I simply see no reason to have this summarized, unsourced and weak article simply exist when we have a more concise, detailed and sourced article on the whole conflict.--Arsenous Commodore 18:15, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Exact geographical extent of the conflict in Africa

This article discusses about probable raids into Cyrenaica and Nubia after the capture of Egypt by the Sasanians. --Z 13:44, 14 September 2018 (UTC)