Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Mardavich (talk | contribs) at 05:06, 25 April 2007. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Iran Unassessed

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Iran, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles related to Iran on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please join the project where you can contribute to the discussions and help with our open tasks.IranWikipedia:WikiProject IranTemplate:WikiProject IranIran ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Military history: Classical / Medieval Start‑class

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history Start This article has been rated as Start-class on the project's quality scale. This article has not yet been checked against the criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar and style: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following code to the template call: | b1<!--Referencing and citation--> = <yes/no> | b2<!--Coverage and accuracy   --> = <yes/no> | b3<!--Structure               --> = <yes/no> | b4<!--Grammar and style       --> = <yes/no> | b5<!--Supporting materials    --> = <yes/no> assessing the article against each criterion. Associated task forces: /  Classical warfare task force (c. 700 BC – c. 500 AD) Medieval warfare task force (c. 500 – c. 1500)

Template:FAOL

Created Roman-Persian Wars, still have to add a lot more information to this page; many battles i'm still constructing to be added here and a box for all the links to each battle too!--Mole Man 06:58, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Finding particular wars such as the Lazic War no matter how small or large.Mole Man

Tactics?

In the beginning the Romans had difficulties fighting the Parthians. Yet, later on they were able to defeat the Parthians. Did they change their tactics? And if so, in what manner? It is worthwhile adding this kind of information to the article.

Wereldburger758 07:03, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

The Romans never defeated the Parthians. The empire went into civil war and a new dynasty took power, known as the Sassanids.Khosrow II 21:54, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay, let me rephrase it: in the beginning the Romans suffered a huge defeat against the Parthians. Yet later on, they were able to defeat the Parthians several times. The fighting tactics of the Romans differed greatly from that of the Parthians. The Romans relied on their heavy infantry while the Parthians relied on their cavalry. My question is: what were the fighting tactics of the Romans in their campaigns against the Parthians? Wereldburger758 13:59, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, battles went back and forth, that is why neither side could not defeat the other, and why the conflict between Iran and Rome lasted almost 1000 years. The answer to you question by the way is that the Romans encorporated the heavy cavalry into their Eastern armies and created new infantry tactics that modern historians dont know much about today, the records got lost.Khosrow II 21:53, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

It was a victory

Yes, the Persians were more than a match for the Romans. But the final war between the Persians and the Romans ended with the Battle of Nineveh. This was a Roman victory. The Persians subsequently never attcked Roman territory again. Therefore it was a Roman victory. Strategically speaking, it was a Roman victory because the Persians had tried to take Constantinople and Egypt as well as the Levant and in the end, after many battles, they held on to them. (Tactically speaking it was a draw, both survived and the frontline did not move much, if at all). Thirdly, the Roman victory is evident in that (a) the Persians fell to a civil war as a result of the defeat; the Persian King was defeated before his aristocracy overthrew him - true one of the Persian generals remained neutral but this more to Byzantine trickery (b) The Arabs first attacked the Romans, then the Persians after Yarmuk, since it was the Romans whom were more of a threat and they held onto the rich provinces of the Levant and Egypt. 81.156.122.95 19:11, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

It was a victory in that the Persians ended up in a civil war whilst the Byzantine empire reached a new height. The Arab victories over the Roman empire occured because Roman strategy was flawed; they had many more men than the Arabs and lost anyway. In any case the Romans were not exhausted as the Persians were.

I'd argue that the final result was a Roman pyrrhic victory. --GCarty 20:02, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Well stated. On second review it was a pyrrhic victory, but a victory nonetheless in that the Roman empire was not destroyed by the Arabs, but the Persian empire was overcome.Tourskin 17:51, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

The end result was a draw at best

A Roman pyrrhic victory? Give me a break. First of all, the Persians won many more battles against the Romans than Vice Versa. The Romans had to pay tribute to the Persians so that they won't get attacked not the other way around. Now what does the Arab conquest of Persia have to do with a "pyrrhic Roman victory"? The Romans and Persians were at peace when the Arabs attacked Persia, hell the Romans and Persians formed an alliance and fought the Arabs together in the Battle of Firaz. http://en.wikipedia.org/Battle_of_Firaz

more evidence than the Romans and Persians were not at war with each other at that stage and they had the same goal and that was to stop the Arabs. The Arabs didn't conquer all of Rome because it was further to them than Persia so I don't see how you made such assumption that since the Arabs took more Persian land than Roman land results in a pyrrhic Roman victory. I'm changing the result to a draw cause that's what it was at best (eventhough Persians won more battles and enjoyed the lions share of territory during most of the time of the wars between the 2 empires) oh and 1 more thing the Persian civil war did not happen because of what happend in the battle of ninveh. The people were unhappy with their king for many reasons but what happend in Ninveh wasn't one of them. In fact many Persians were inviting arabs to come and get rid of their king and did in fact help the arabs in their conquest. The1thatmatters 00:49, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Trivia

The Quranic reference is interesting; however, I disagree that it should be the last sentence at the introduction of the article. I've moved it to a Trivia section, although I think Trivia might sound pejorative- this isn't intended. However, this is a history article, so religious revelations and such should be on the back-burner. No offense, just sense.--C.Logan 11:29, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I've temporarily removed the information until I can somehow incorporate some of the information found here(Specifically, the quotations from Watt and C.G. Pfander.) As it does cast doubt on whether this is actually even what is predicted in the Quran, the information should somehow be incorporated.--C.Logan 20:46, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

• Unassessed Iran articles
• Unknown-importance Iran articles
• WikiProject Iran articles
• Start-Class military history articles
• Start-Class Classical warfare articles
• Classical warfare task force articles
• Start-Class Medieval warfare articles
• Medieval warfare task force articles