Talk:Battle of Samarra (363)

message: I added a "territory" category to the Warbox. And included that Jovian, as a result of this disastrous battle was forced to cede districts on the Tigris and Nisibis.--Arsenous Commodore 20:26, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: 1. WikiProject Afghanistan reference was entirely groundless (why someone keeps putting this reference in unrelated battles, is beyond me). I removed it.
2. First and last paragraph were severely distorted and that action seems completely intentional. Take a look at this : The battle of Samarra took place in 363 after the invasion of Sassanid Persia (Iran) by the Romans. Despite this, Roman Emperor Julian the Apostate was killed in this battle.  Despite what?
Or this : Julian's successor, Emperor Jovian, made a successful delay ploy by promising Shapur that he would surrender a total of five Roman provinces, including strategic cities such as Nisibis. Jovian never delivered on this humiliating treaty.. Of cource (and as Arvand already said before me), we all know from reliable sources that strategically important districts and fortresses like Nisibis were ceded to Iranians. 
I'll try to fix all these.Dipa1965 (talk) 13:45, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Why this article was so severely vandalized?

message: The article needs citations (esp. for the numbers of soldiers involved). 
It may also need perhaps moving to another title. For how do we know for sure that the vicinity of modern Samarra was the place of battlefield? In the article for Julian the Apostate it is mentioned that the battle took place near Maranga (where a major battle between the two opponents was fought a few days before). That was correct, if we accept Ammianus narrative.Dipa1965 (talk) 13:45, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Further work needed

message: This was not a decisive Persian victory for two reasons:
* It was just a skirmish. A skirmisg cannot be called decisive.
* A simple military event (especially a skirmish as in this case) is usually not the reason for a decisive change of balance. The death of Julian at Samarra was not the reason for the catastrophic outcome of his expedition: it would be so even if Julian was not killed there.
--Dipa1965 (talk) 17:14, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, thanks for the time you spent on it. Because of this blatant lack of reliable materials, i suggest leaving the outcome as it is. Best regards.---Wikaviani (talk) 03:58, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: To be or not to be "decisive"

message: Hi, we discussed this matter two years ago and i agreed with your points back then, however, when i look at the sources, it appears that Iranica supports a Roman defeat and the Brill source says, on page 62 "A prominent 4th century defeat was suffered at the battle of Samarra in 363". As to the CUP source, it says, on page 34 "Julian, renewed the Roman offensive in the East in order to deal with the
situation along the Eastern frontier of the Roman Empire once and for
all. His advance far into Sasanian territory was successful at first but ended
in catastrophe.", since Julian's campaign ended up with the battle of Samarra, this source is not supporting a Roman victory either ...
The only mention of a Roman victory in the CUP source is on page 92, it quotes two 1500 years old authors, one being Greek (Zosimus) and the other being Roman (Ammianus) and says "In this situation the two armies clashed at Samarra; the Romans defeated the Persians but Julian was wounded and died on 26 June 363. With  regard  to  the  emperor’s  death,  other  sources  diverge from these accounts.". It seems pretty clear that the Sasanian (decisive) victory is way better sourced by modern reliable sources (BRILL, Encyclopedia Iranica ...). Best.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 18:26, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I get your point, but we have to follow WP:NPOV and as the above sources say, this battle (as it is described by the sources) was the last one of the campaign and it ended up badly for the Romans (this article is a mess by the way, Gibbon is used as a "source" numerous times ...). Pinging some knowledgeable editors to have their input too.  gentlemen, your opinion would be appreciated.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 19:54, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: So what is the real argument? What is represented in the infobox? We have sources that call it a Roman victory, we have sources that call it a Persian/Sasanian victory, and we have sources like Potter p518 that refrain to assign a victor to this battle/skirmish/raid. I do not think it would be too difficult to re-write the article(replacing the primary and outdated sources) and present it from all perspectives. --Kansas Bear (talk) 22:42, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yeah, this article (too) needs a major rewrite. The argument of this section is about what should be written in the infobox about the battle's outcome. I have found few sources that support a Roman victory, some being, in my opinion, unreliable for this topic, like S. R. Ward. Sources about a Sasanian victory seem easier to find but they seem to describe the battle's outcome as a Persian victory primarily because of Julian's death.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 23:14, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Outcome