Talk:Battle of Avarayr

message: This is a very badly written article. Not only are there numerous grammar mistakes, but also the tone of the article gives you the feeling that it is just a bad translation from a patriotic Armenian school book. Here is a random excerpt:
Armenian army took the Holy Communion before the battle. The army was mostly composed of popular masses but led by Armenian noblemen who were experienced soldiers, having fought in many wars, sometimes alongside the Persian army. They were all motivated by the desire to preserve their religion and new way of life. 
What significance is there in a christian army taking the holy communion just before the war? Did it help the outcome? Who on earth polled the masses which make up the army on what motivated them or even if they were motivated? If you like, preach the patriotic nonsense to your gullible masses but put only facts in a Wikipedia article please.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.65.42.76 (talk) 06:13, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe because the only account is written in an Armenian epic a few centuries later? Serouj (talk) 06:18, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: That is why we edit before we put things in an encyclopedia.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.219.138.254 (talk) 15:33, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Just Bad 

message: In Armenian it's Vartanats Paterazm, War of Vartanants but the specific battle is Avarayri &akatamart - Battle of Avarayr (location where the battle was fought).--Eupator 00:57, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Battle of Avarayr NOT Vartanants 

message: This article is awfully biased and clearly written from an Armenian perspective: 
"Sassanid overlords"
"Although the Persians eventually subdued the rebellion, they had to revise their plans for persecution of Christians"
After doing a term project on the Sassanids I believe that this article should be relegated to a Start article. The Sassanids punishing of the Armenians was meant to prevent any further interference from the Byzantines in Sassanid affairs.
Rampage57 03:44, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Am I missing something? Where the hell does it say Armenian victory? It was an Armenian military loss. In every other sense it was an Armenian victory though. Armenians had outrageous priviliges in Sassanid times. The marzpanate of Armenia was governed by an Armenian while every other marzpanate was governed by Persians for example.-- Ευπάτωρ Talk!! 23:21, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It used to say Armenian victory some hours ago, Nareklm changed it back. Note that according to Armenian sources, the Persians lost approximately 3 times more men than the Armenians. However, that doesn't change the fact that the Armenians lost military. In the decades following the battle, the continued Armenian resistance led by Vahan Mamikonian (the successor of Vartan) eventually forced the Persians to accept the Nvarsak Treaty (484) which guaranteed freedom of religion to the Armenians. I'll add some this info to the article. -- Davo88 00:20, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Awfully biased. 

message: That the Sassanians had a policy of attempting to eradicate non-Zoroasterian faiths is uncontroversial.  Since we moderns believe in the freedom of religion, it is bound that anything we write is bound to appear "biased" on Avarayr.  The alternative is of course, relativism -- in its brutest form.
So, we can come up with the excuse of "consolidating the polity," to wipe out all undersireable cultures.  And, only a few decades or centuries later, we have writers like Ramapag defending Sassanian policy against a weak and small nation that desired nothing other than to be left alone.--Jackkalpakian 14:34, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bias -- or just the right of a people to determine their religion? 

message: There are few subjects less given to attack from non-Armenians hostile to the existence of Armenians than our history.  We have here a clear attempt to distort the reality of what took place that May more than 1500 years ago -- it was a stand by a population that simply wanted to be.  It was pan-class, pan-national, and with a very clear message -- let us be who we are.  
Unfortunately, Armenians have not been left alone, ever.  Byzantium and the Ottomans came to repeat the same policy as the Sassanians.
All three nations are off the map today.  While Armenia saw immense suffering throughout, it exists and they do not.  Let history be a warning to Armenia's enemies.--Jackkalpakian 21:57, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it is not exactly clear how much todays Iranians have in common with Sassanians. Iranians are a multi ethnic, multi cultural people. Also your logic doesn't make much sense, Sassanids were meddling in Armenian affairs just as much as Byzantines (who often were of Armenian heritage). Who says it wasn't the Byzantines trying to stop Sassanid encroachment?-- Ευπάτωρ Talk!! 15:14, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Modern parallels 

message: The article implies that Armenian resistence before and after the battle eventually led the Persians to allow them to practice Christianity as they wished.  However, the early material makes it clear that the Persians didn't want them to stop being Christians -- they only wanted the Armenian Church to be part of the Church of the East (which followed the Bishop of Ctesiphon) rather than the Western Church that was based in the Roman Empire.  It's noted in passing that the Persians agreed to allow the Armenians to keep their existing church structure after the Council of Chaldecon had prompted the schism between the Armenians and the Western church.  Surely this also has a lot to do with the ultimate outcome of the dispute? --Jfruh (talk) 16:59, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reasons why Armenians were allowed to keep their church organization 

message: IP address 217.146.216.194, editing out of kanoon.net registered to Kanoon Informatic of Tehran, Iran, threw in some vandalism primarily in the summary. (This was most definitely a Pyrrhic, not a decisive, victory for the Sassanids.) I'm going to switch it back, but I really hope he gets embarrassed enough by this to not do it again. I hate this kind of thing, but it's part of the life of the WikiCitizen... ExOttoyuhr (talk) 21:24, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  We've got a Persian troll. 

message: 220 000 Sassanid Persians? 
The largest armies of the Sassanid Empire would not exceed 80 000 and here suddently I see numbers of 220 000. 
I am not gonna edit it, because i cannot provide sources, but still, this book is not proving enough sources itself. In almost all battles of this time the sassanid numbers are under 100 000, suddently in a rebelion there are 220 000.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.81.72.11 (talk) 14:02, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Numbers 

message: How on earth did this mediocre article ever reach B Class status?  Besides its tendentious use of sources, it doesn't actually contain a description of the battle, even though (judging from the nice map that somebody has drawn) its course is described in some detail in the Armenian sources.  Until somebody decides to fix the article's many deficiencies, it deserves to be downgraded to Start Class.  Let's keep a proper sense of proportion, please.      
Djwilms (talk) 07:22, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  So this is B-Class? 

message: The article currently states "In 484 AD, Shah Peroz I signed the Nvarsak Treaty, which guaranteed religious freedom to the Christian Armenians [10]—who were, however, no longer in communion with Rome or Constantinople—and granted a general amnesty with permission to construct new churches."  I am deleting the statement enclosed by dashes since it seems unlikely that the Armenians were out of communion with Rome and Constantinople given that the process of officially rejecting the Council of Chalcedon appears to have occurred later at the First and Second Councils of Dvin (506 A.D., 551 A.D.) and certainly not earlier than the Council of Vagharshapat (491 A.D.).  Ketone16 (talk) 20:28, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: You are 100% correct.-- Ευπάτωρ Talk!! 14:14, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Timeframe for rejecting the Council of Chalcedon 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Battle of Avarayr. 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  tag to http://www.cultinfo.ru/fulltext/1/001/007/018/18265.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090531014545/http://www.armenica.org:80/cgi-bin/history/en/getHistory.cgi?7==76==Battle%20of%20Avarayr=== to http://www.armenica.org/cgi-bin/history/en/getHistory.cgi?7==76==Battle%20of%20Avarayr===
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:05, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Battle of Avarayr. 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/20070930045233/http://www.ansc.org/ansc/armenia.cfm to http://www.ansc.org/ansc/armenia.cfm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:58, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The original article in Armenian says it was fought on 26 may in year 451. I don't know if i am wrong or right but i am slightly confused reading this article. Luigi Cotocea (talk) 07:19, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wasn't on 26 May 451