Talk:Battle of Carrhae

message: This claim is wrong.
In the pointing article it says:
 "Battles between the Parthian Empire and the Roman Republic began in 92 BC"
 But this battle is in 53 BC...--Leonardo Da Vinci (talk) 10:25, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: First of the Roman/Parthian battles?

message: This section bothers me. 
"For several centuries previous to this battle - in fact, ever since winning the Second Punic War - the Romans had seemed, to themselves as to others, unstoppable. They had defeated, and eventually conquered and absorbed, every[citation needed] country which they encountered. At least in the eastward direction, this centuries-long march of conquest came to an end with the Battle of Carrhae; though the Romans would continue fighting with Parthia and later with its Sassanid succesor for hundreds of years, they would never either aim at or achieve their eastern rival's conquest and subjugation."
First of all, this is false. The Romans had suffered numerous setbacks in Iberia, plus they had failed to conquer Britain at this point. More importantly, Trajan had desired and aimed at the subjugation of Persia, but stopped after conquering Mesopotamia due to advancing age. I'm not sure that a "Roman invincibility myth" existed at all- the closest thing I can find at this time period is the Gauls believing Caesar was unbeatable, and even that was shattered after Gergovia.   —Preceding unsigned comment added by Caius Magnus (talk • contribs) 14:15, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: thanks for clarifying -  should show logisitics was not a Roman expertise  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.56.224.34 (talk) 17:13, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Inaccuracies

message: The Romans at this time did not use lorica segmenta armor. Iron band armor only became widespread during the 2nd century CE, especially during Trajan's time period. The standard armor for heavy infantry-Roman legionaries would have been specialized chainmail. I have corrected the link to lead to the lorica hamata page.
Intranetusa 00:26, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Incorrect use of the lorica segmenta

message: The last edit which is my edit is 100% copyrighted , with the written permission.So stop blaming for copyright.E-mail me for more details. Amir85 11:39, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This article incorporates material from [X], a copyrighted work.  Amir85 asserts that he has been given written permission by the copyright holder(s) to use this work verbatim on Wikipedia.  He has posted the precise details of the permission on this article's talk page.
Then you post the exact e-mail exchange here, so everyone can view it.  It's important that this e-mail exchange make it clear that the text will be edited—many copyright holders are fine with reasonable-sized direct quotations as long as they're kept intact, but deny permission for the text to be modified.
For the time being, since this is such an extraordinary case, I will err on the side of caution and keep the unquestionably acceptable text from before your edit.  At such time as you provide an exact, dated e-mail exchange granting Wikipedia permission to incorporate the text verbatim but with any changes anyone may make, I will cease to revert your editions. —Simetrical (talk) 19:57, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible copyright infringement, take two 

message: There is no mention whatsoever in the records of the battle of Carrhae of legionaries assuming the testudo formation.
WILL PEOPLE STOP USING COMPUTER GAME MANUALS AS REFERENCE MATERIAL!
Furthermore, shields pinnend to soldiers' arms and hands are likely to be rare incidents highlighted by ancient authors for dramatic effect.
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Tortoise_formation"
:"For if [the legionaries] decided to lock shields for the purpose of avoiding the arrows by the closeness of their array, the [cataphracts] were upon them with a rush, striking down some, and at least scattering the others; and if they extended their ranks to avoid this, they would be struck with the arrows." - Cassius Dio  Twelvetoner (talk) 19:22, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Testudo 

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

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

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

message: In the section on the battle, it's said that the cavalry led by Publius Crassus were screening as an advance force when they were surrounded by the Parthians. I don't think this is correct, and the description of the battle seems rather fuzzy overall. Here are three secondary sources that I found helpful:
*Martin Sicker,  The Pre-Islamic Middle East (Greenwood Publishing Group, 2000), pp. 149–151 online (from a strategic point of view);
*A.D.H. Bivar, "The Political History of Iran under the Arsacids," in The Cambridge History of Iran (Cambridge University Press, 1983) vol. 3, pp. 48–56 limited preview online (with lots of background before getting to the actual battle);
*Philip Sidnell, "Warhorse: Cavalry in Ancient Warfare" (Continuum, 2006), pp. 237–242 online (from the cavalry's POV).
I'm sure there are others. A major primary source for the Battle of Carrhae is Plutarch's Life of Crassus, starting around section 17 here. I think a closer look might be beneficial to the article. Cynwolfe (talk) 16:31, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  "screening" 

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

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

message: The part which is probably not valid: "It was the first of many battles between the Roman and Persian empires,"
Parthian empire wasn't Persian empire - most likely it had nothing to do with Persians. Parthians were rather Scythians (Huns??).
The way they won the battle (luring the enemy pretending retreat and when they follow releasing rain of arrows onto them) is typical Scythian/Hun/Hungarian way of fighting. Not mentioning the 'composite' bows which also called 'Scythian' bow well-known used by the two other(?) above mentioned nations. It could be said that different nations/cultures could use that kind of instrument, still, I don't know of such thing.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hetseven (talk • contribs) 04:10, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, Arsacid Parthians, who ruled oover Iran as the Arsacid Empire for about 500 years were of Dahae extraction, and more precisely of Parni extraction (the Parni were an Eastern Iranian people). Although not Persian, these Iranian peoples were closely related. Best regards.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 12:16, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Parthians = Persians?? 

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

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

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

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Battle of Carrhae. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050830050813/http://www.redrampant.com:80/roma/carrhae.html to http://www.redrampant.com/roma/carrhae.html
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) 14:27, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: For years now, some people have been trying to force this picture of a Parthian statue (the "Shami statue", Statue, National Museum of Iran 2401) on this article, in the belief that it can somehow be connected to the Parthian general of Carrhae, Surena.
We've been through this half a dozen of times in various talkpage discussions: There is apparently no evidence at all who this statue is meant to depict, and no reliable source has ever been found that even as much as hints to the possibility that it might be Surena. We have an article about this statue, citing a decent number of reliable sources describing it, (among them this  fairly decent online article in Encyclopedia Iranica, normally a decent source on such matters), and none of them even mentions the name. The alleged connection between the statue and this person appears to be the product of amateur speculation on the web.
The most recent version of this canard, edit-warred back into the page by  , is doubly nonsensical: first, it tries to hedge the speculative WP:OR identification through the classic weasel wording of "(attributed) by some"; second, it misuses the term "attributed" (in English, when you say about a work of art that it is "attributed" to somebody, you mean the artist who made it, not the person it depicts). 
The arguments given by PersianFire in their edit summaries  are equally egregious: There is no need of a source to confirm whether it is meant to depict Surena. It is a relevant pic depicting a Parthian nobleman - how Surena w/h looked like. Same as statue of Leonidas I, no source stating it's him, however it's still a rep of a hoplite. – First, yes, there is a need of a source; since the caption expresses a claim of fact, that claim needs to be sourced, period. Second, the comparison with Leonidas is bogus, if it is meant to allude to this well-known statue. While it is true that the ascription is not certain in the case of this statue, the crucial difference to the present case is: it is sourced. We have an article about this statue too, and you can follow the citation showing that there is indeed a serious scholarly debate, where authors have explicitly discussed the likely hypothesis that the statue was meant to represent Leonidas (even though it's not universally considered certain). 
I'm going to remove the picture again some time tomorrow, if reliable sources are not brought forward for it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:20, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Parthian statue picture 

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

message: The source for the size and make up of the Parthian forces is Plutarch, who is a (the) main source for the battle. There's no reason to change this without very reliable sources to back it up. A good reference to Plutarch in a modern work wouldn't hurt though.Pipsally (talk) 15:30, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  10,000 soldiers and slaves 

message: The Wikipedia article on Abgar II says that he was one who betrayed the Romans, not "Osroene chieftain Ariamnes" as stated in the article.  Should this be resolved or even discussed? Droopyfeathers (talk) 22:47, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Osroene chieftain Ariamnes