Talk:Military of the Sasanian Empire

message: Reasons given are :
* Could the Ranks subsection be a little more elaborate instead of a pure list, maybe a table or a longer description would be necessary.
* Beside the downfall of the Azadan nobility, there is no mention of any downfall of the Sassanid army, showing that the article isn't broad enough.
* Were there any battle won by this army?
* Where was the army situated in the world ... can we pinpoint that to the modern world. (Might be mentioned in the lead section though not present in the article).
* 2 / 5 images fail to give their Fair Use rationale. Lincher 20:38, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: GA delisted

message: I would suggest that iamges from a vide game are non-encyclopedic and should be deleted from the article.  Unless there is any objection, I will do so and upload some of the monumental artwork showing Sassanid cavalry instead.Larry Dunn 14:34, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No objections, so I removed the video game image and replaced it with actual period art -- the Taq-e Bostan relief.Larry Dunn 15:57, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Images Non-Encyclopedic

message: The article contains this statement:
For instance during Khosrau I era, his infantry were more disciplined and better equipped than Byzantine legions.
Two problems.
1) Byzantine infantry were not organized into "legions"
2) I don't remember ever having read this.  Sassanid infantry are usually described as levies, with light infantry in support.  Can someone please cite the source for this assertion on the article?  Thanks.Larry Dunn 16:07, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just tagged the assertion.Larry Dunn 16:07, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Khusrau I infantry

message: This section uses many words, either interchangably or apparently as sub-ranks within the adazan nobility -- to the reader it's not at all clear which one is meant.  Would someone with more background in this please clean it up?Larry Dunn 18:15, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Adazan nobility section

message: The identification of the panjikan as a type of ballista is a mistake, this was an archery technique to fire five arrows in quick succession (A. Boudot-Lamotte Contribution a l’étude de l’archerie musulmane (Damascus 1968) 148; E. Yar-Shater (ed.) The History of al-Tabari 11-38 (NY 1985-2007) 2.454; Th. Nöldeke Tabari. Geschichte der Perser und Araber zur Zeit der Sasaniden (Leiden 1973) 233; B. Lewis (ed.&transl.) Islam. From the Prophet Muhammad to the Capture of Constantinople. I. Politics and War (New York 1974) 215.
Unless you have got some good objections, I propose to remove it. 
The assumption that the knowledge of ancient siege machinery had somehow disapeared from the Middle East, only to be relearned from the Romans, I believe to be a eurocentric bias. True, our sources never mention Parthian siege activity, but they conquered a vast empire, including many cities. Not knowing if there was artillery is not the same as knowing there was no artillery.Koechlyruestow (talk) 22:54, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Artillery

message: Why is this article, called military, only about the army, with the navy in a separate article? 2603:8001:D300:A631:0:0:0:10D0 (talk) 01:24, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  army + navy = military