Talk:Roman–Persian Wars/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Hello I made some changes and expanded the results of your article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MadeByGod (talk • contribs) 06:20, 6 April 2010 (UTC) The point of the territorial changes section of the data box is to record how the territorial position after the conflict was different from the position before. Of course, this would normally be applied to a single war rather than several centuries' worth of them, but the principle is the same. This section is there to record how the situation after the last war between the Roman Empire and the Sassanids differed from the situation before the first war between the Roman Republic and the Parthians. Zburh (talk) 01:18, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

actually not. this article is nothing but "an overview of centuries of wars" so the result section should be "an overview of all the things". So I think the infobox was fine before you open that can. this is my point of view--Xashaiar (talk) 01:23, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

My reference to the can of worms actually related to the introduction (see above, if you can be bothered to read through all the screeds of discussion which that question produced).

Even to include only the permanent cessions of territory that took place at the end of various wars (the gains made in Mesopotamia by Septimius Severus, Galerius and Shapur II, plus the various adjustments of control in the Transcaucasus) would be pretty long-winded and (as I see it) not consistent with the function of that section of the databox. To include the more complex and extensive details of all the occasions when one side or the other occupied some portion of enemy territory or lost it again in the course of a particular war would be horribly unwieldy and impractical. Zburh (talk) 01:46, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. The infobox was good.--Xashaiar (talk) 10:57, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, I disagree with you. At least, Zburh has a wll-grounded argumentation. You just have your "disagreement". And why are you putting the same image twice in the article?! Don't you see the image already exists?! And of course it is not better like that. You broke two sections and made the article in these particular sections look ugly. For God shake! What's this nonsense for Roman or Persian POV for events which took place 2,000 years ago! Come on, now!--Yannismarou (talk) 14:17, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Poor Zburh. Per Sept you were a "Persian nationalist"! Now, per Xashaiar you obviously became a "pro-Roman POV pusher"!--Yannismarou (talk) 14:22, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, no one likes a neutral. Zburh (talk) 21:15, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't know. But from September on lot could have happened. Even USA has got a new president. Such things can happen and change one's perspective.--Xashaiar (talk) 14:33, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Irrelevant. If it was an attempt for humor, thanks for the effort, but I failed to grasp it. Now, if you argue that Zburh became pro-Roman because Obama became the new US president, this is another thing! Having to respond to such an argument ... Well, I cannot! I surrender!--Yannismarou (talk) 14:41, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh, of course "it was an attempt for humor". --Xashaiar (talk) 14:50, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Question: where this image should be located? Historiography at the end? I think that would be unfair. Why not in the section "Early Roman–Sassanid conflicts". The image should be relocated.--Xashaiar (talk) 14:28, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

You already have an image about the event in the relevant section, and a Persian one! Why to put there both?! I initially had there the painting, but, after proposals by Persian users, I changed them, and put there the image from the Persian monument. And what does unfair mean?! A nice painting serves its purpose everywhere! Do you want to exchange places with the Persian monument? But why should we use in the history section a painting of the 16th century, when we have a near-time monument?!--Yannismarou (talk) 14:38, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Check also the discussion here, where I fought another vicious effort of the pro-Roman wiki-faction to belittle Shapur's achievement. Old good pro-Persia times! Before Obama's election!--Yannismarou (talk) 14:44, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

You make your points. You see, the image shows how Roman saw the event. This is important. The current location tends not to appreciate the artistic side of the conflict. Persian monument remains there. I don't know, if the current location of the picture is good. Let it be there.--Xashaiar (talk) 14:48, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

It shows what the 16th century painter imagined it would be like-with all the historical detail inaccuracies intact.HammerFilmFan (talk) 05:56, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Let's wait for further feedback, and if other users agree with you, move it. What can I say?!--Yannismarou (talk) 14:50, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough.--Xashaiar (talk) 14:54, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

In the section on the Battle of Carrhae, the article notes that Marcus Licinius Crassus died along with his son, Publius; however, the link led to Publius Licinius Crassus, the consul of 171 BC. Since the battle took place in 53 BC, and since Marcus Crassus himself wasn't born till around 115 BC, and since an FA is supposed to be a model article, and since it's a history article, this otherwise small error struck me as fairly credibility-undermining. There are at least two disambiguation pages devoted to sorting out the Publii Crassi: Publius Licinius Crassus (disambiguation) and Publius Crassus. The article actually titled Publius Licinius Crassus (son of triumvir) is quite a lengthy treatment of the subject, with a detailed account of the battle from the perspective of Publius's men and discussion of background to the war. Cynwolfe (talk) 13:10, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Someone posted a sentence in the article stating that the map that shows the greatest extent of the Sassanid Empire, dated c. 610, should instead be dated c. 620. I removed the sentence because it didn't belong in the article, but don't know whether or not the person who put that there was right. Ucucha 13:11, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

It was accurate: the conquest of the Levant and Egypt did not happen until after 610. Either way, this map is grossly inaccurate, as has been explained at various points at

Talk:Sassanid Empire. I did suggest to the Map workshop to make a new one, but nothing came of this, alas. Constantine ✍

14:02, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I changed it to 620 in the article on the strength of your post. Wouldn't it be better to remove the map for now, though, if it is inaccurate? Ucucha 15:06, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I replaced the map with an external link box with maps from actual atlases. Constantine ✍ 15:54, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Although mainly inactive during the last months, I am thrilled to see the article in Wikipedia's main page. Who made the petition for first page publication? It was Constantine? Anyway ... Cons guys! It was a nice surprise which made my day, and reminded me the "old" days, when me and other users were working on this article to bring it to GA and FA status. And, inevitably, when there is collective work, there are frictions and disagreements. I remember how furious I was, when Sept submitted a FAR (grrrrrrr!), but now, watching from a distance, I see everything with a different eye, and I understand that the common denominator of everybody's actions was the achievement of a higher quality for the article. Unfortunately, sometimes there were misunderstandings.

Just a minor remarks: Have the rules in WP changes or this long list of external links within "Primary Sources" should go?--Yannismarou (talk) 14:13, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

No, it wasn't me, but it is certainly a pleasant and welcome surprise! BTW, is there any chance you'll be back editing here? You and your great contributions are being missed... Constantine ✍ 15:44, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure who all is responsible for this article... but it is amazing. It even makes for a good read. Thanks all! Azoreg (talk) 17:58, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

The page refers to Iranian Empires, and Wars between Roman and Iranians. This is totally irresponsible and sloppy. The Romans never fought Iranians. There were no Iranian empires. The Romans fought Persians and the empires were Persian. The word Iran goes back a long way into history as excellent pages in Wikipedia point out, but it describes the people, or the land, but not the empire. The Romans like the Greeks before them knew their enemy as Persis, Perses, or Persica. They fought Persians.

When the Mongols invaded Kievan Rus in 1237, they did not fight the "Soviet Union" or the "Russian Republic" which is how the place was known for most of the 20th century and is known today. They invaded and fought against whatever THEY called those people!

It is at best ambiguous, at worst historically inaccurate to describe the Sassanian as an Iranian Empire. They were Persians, particularly where their Greco-Roman enemies were concerned.Mardak63 (talk) 16:04, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the term "Iranian" is a) correct and very widely used in scholarship to refer to the ancient Persian states/people/culture and b) far more appropriate than "Persian", because it also covers the Parthians, who were an Iranian people but certainly not Persians. Constantine ✍ 16:18, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

The Parthian Empire known in Farsi as Ashkanian was in fact PERSIAN! They were preceded by the Achaemenid Empire and if one looks at the territory of both PERSIAN dynasties, one will see that the use of Parthian and Persian as differently as it is in the above comment is in fact implying a disparity where none exists! The Farsi word for both is PARS and the Persians--known today as Iranians--do consider both dynasties as belonging to the collective of Persian Empires. The trend to use the word "Iranian" in place of Persian has been actively promoted by the Islamic Republic of Iran over the past thirty years. If one looks at historic "scholarship referring to the ancient Persian states/people/culture" that predates the Islamic Republic, Wikipedia, and the internet, one will find The word Persian used correctly and discover that the Romans never fought "Iranians." As far as they were concerned, they fought Persians because that's what the Romans called their enemies from the east and that is how the Kings of Persia described themselves, using the word Pars and Parsi to refer to themselves.208.252.13.8 (talk) 19:26, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, well, the current scholarly consensus is that "Iranian" can be and is being used as a legitimate catch-all term for these empires/peoples/etc, and Wikipedia has to follow that. As for the word "Persian", the Sassanids for instance used Eran, not Pars to describe their state. And "Iran" was promoted in international use not by the Islamic Republic, but by the Shah. I am aware of the controversy over the use of "Iran" and "Persia" among Iranians and the political associations of the respective terms, but WP is not the place for this dispute. Regards, Constantine ✍ 21:36, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

"I wasted time and now doth time waste me." Yes, the Shah did aggressively promote the use of the word Iran but only in as far as it involved current references to the country. What the land was called 2500 years ago during its inception was never in question by the Shah. That is merely a recent development. And as you correctly point out the word eran--pronounced Iran--is an ancient word which actually predates the Sassanids by several hundred years and two dynasties. In fact, eran was eran before the Achaemenid dynasty and the advent of the Persian Empire, but that's not what the people who formed the empire called it. They called it Persia. It is unfortunate that Wikipedia which is very much a living document and a widely viewed version of history, as you say "has to follow that" catch all term. The distinction between Persia and Iran is historically critical as is the difference between the Soviet Union and Russia, in that it represents an era and periods in history. You are incorrect my friend in that WK as a historic record is very much the place for the settlement of this dispute, particularly if WK has conveniently chosen the historically inaccurate expressions of history by which to refer to people, places, and times in ways that would have been alien to the people at the time. One after all does not refer to Iron age Britain as the United Kingdom, so these things are important. I thank you for your time and your clarification.208.252.13.8 (talk) 22:25, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

There is a fundamental problem with your argument here: the "Soviet Union" is a term which did not exist in say the Middle Ages, so it obviously can not be used in such a context to refer to Russia. However "Russia" can and is being used to refer to the USSR. By your own admission however, "Iran" is an ancient term, used at the same time, even officially, by the ancient Persians. It is also well-attested that "Persia" is rather an exonym, as the name the Greeks gave the entire Achaemenid Empire. So both names have the same historical validity, and the use of "Iran" is not anachronistic as you imply. Further, as explained above, the fact that "Iranian peoples" covers more than just the people of Fars/Persis, makes it an ideal term for including the Parthians as well. If you don't like it, sorry, but that is how scholarly usage stands, and WP, as an encyclopedia, has to respect this. Constantine ✍ 23:14, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Beside, the term Persian is in fact wrong when applied to ancient history. Therefore the change "Persian->Iranian" is not only following scholarly works, but also a correction. Xashaiar (talk) 22:58, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I used the Soviet Union example merely to point out that the various names by which countries are called at various points in history do matter, not to try to follow any particular logic. In fact, it is difficult to find a historical parallel to the Iran/Persia/Iran situation. "My own admission?!!!" I am not trying to win an argument here, although I see that that is lost here. The general accuracy of the term Iran/eran is not in question here, nor is its age or its origins. We certainly agree on this point. You use the term "scholarly usage," but for every "scholar" you may reference, I can reference two who would support my position. Nor does this have anything to do with my likes or dislikes. I actually prefer the word Iran, it's what I was raised with. I had never even heard of the English word "Persia" until I began to study the history of Iran in the west. Again you talk about Parthians and Persians as if they are from two different worlds. They spoke the same language and if you transpose the maps of the two empires, you'll notice, they are pretty much the same territory. Actually, Persia is not a name the Greeks gave, it was also what the Persians called the land, Pars. The Greeks merely picked up on what they were hearing. You know, this is my very first post on Wikipedia. I had no idea I was going to start a religious war or upset people. I am telling you everything I have learned over 40 years of research. Take it, leave it, debate it, whatever. If I had the time--which I don't--I would actually love to continue this discussion with you, however in a more tempered and scholarly and less heated manner. Wikipedia is merely a tool, not a be all end all--although it is rather wonderful. I wish I had time to reference texts and studies as many wonderful people-like who ever wrote the original article in question here--have, to show you where I am coming from. But I don't. I can't even believe I got this far! Thank you for your perspective.

As for the user who says a term Persian that has been used for millenia through out the western world is simply "wrong"--I am assuming this is because he says so--I am not even going to engage in that discussion.Mardak63 (talk) 03:30, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry if you mistook this discussion as "heated" :) Anyway, again, what is your point? Why is it "at best ambiguous, at worst historically inaccurate to describe the Sassanian as an Iranian Empire"? Why is "Persian" to be preferred over "Iranian"? Clearly both terms are historically equally valid so...? Since the "general accuracy of the term Iran/eran is not in question", I simply don't get what you object to. At first you explicitly pointed at its use being anachronistic, but now...? If the Cambridge History of Iran goes to cover the entirety of Persian history, if scholarly books refer to the Persian and Parthian states as "Iranian", what is the problem? Either the article is still called "Roman-Persian Wars", so again what exactly is the problem? That the Parthians are called "Iranian" and not "Persian"? Constantine ✍ 03:48, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

In the maps During Justinian Reign and Roman and Persian Empires in 477, two political entities so-named Basken and Vaconia appear taking up a considerable extension of the North of the Iberian Peninsula.

This is largely unaccurate, because:

1. There was not such political entities ever. To the most, one can think that for some decades the cantabrian and basque (and not just basque) territories were to some extent outside the reach of the effective authority of the Kingdoms or Empires ruling most of the Peninsula. But this should not allow to confer them definite borders and an explicit political entity.

2. At any rate, to bring the western "border" of these territories to the centre of present Asturias is a huge mistake.

Excellent article, otherwise.

This is not a problem of the article, but of the image, so the tag should be removed. --TakenakaN (talk) 11:16, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

The infobox seems to be rather overloaded with links to articles about commanders. This should really be cut down or moved into the article itself, especially since something like a third are redlinks. Please keep in mind that infoboxes are supposed to be brief summaries.

Otherwise a nice and informative article. Good job, everyone.

Peter ^Isotalo 20:38, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I suggest the title of the article be changed to Roman-Iranian wars since the sassanid realm was known as "Iranshahr" ,Not "persian empire" or anything else alike. I assume the parthians didnt consider themselves "persian" either. 78.39.92.21 (talk) 10:10, 13 February 2010 (UTC)Goshtasp

"Persian" is the common name in English. HammerFilmFan (talk) 06:03, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

700+ years of war that dominated most of the known world for so long, and not a nice picture in the infobox? This article is a FA article too, it would be really nice if someone could add a fitting image. - LouisAragon (talk) 15:01, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Done! --1990'sguy (talk) 19:23, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Hey 1990'sguy! I removed the picture, since it's not a good image to describe the Roman-Persian wars as a whole. It's also kinda one-sided. --HistoryofIran (talk) 19:26, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

HistoryofIran, I can see how this image might not be ideal for the infobox, but I did say in the caption that both the Romans and the Parthians/Sassanids experienced both victories and defeats throughout the conflict. But regardless, if the image I used is not ideal, then can you find an image that is good? There should be an image in the infobox. --1990'sguy (talk) 21:16, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

I've already tried several times, and I couldn't find a proper one. I agree that there should be an image in the infobox, but the previous image is not the right solution. It's like adding the image of Valerian kneeling before Shapur I. --HistoryofIran (talk) 21:36, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure how to do this myself, but what do you think of the possibility of making an infobox collage, similar to the collages on the articles of more recent major wars (

Persian Gulf war, etc.). That way, we could include the image I put in the infobox, as well as the one of Valerian in front of Shapur I, and a few others, which would give balance. --1990'sguy (talk

) 22:55, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Nice idea. Unfortunately I don't know how to make such infobox either. --HistoryofIran (talk) 23:38, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

A collage would indeed be a cool idea, and I wholeheartedly support it. Unfortunately however, I don't know how to create one as well. - LouisAragon (talk) 00:07, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

I don't have too much time for this, but I can try to create a collage using some of the images on this article, as well as the one I suggested. --1990'sguy (talk) 22:28, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

In response to this "IP's" accusations of "Islamophoby"[1], and "anti-Arabism",[2] as well as using a false edit summary to push for an agenda, I highly advise him to raise his concerns properly here. Having said that, his additional hilarious threat and blatant misinterpretation of WP policies due to, unfortunately, the sheer lack of knowledge,[3], and the multiple blocks and warnings given to him,[4] furthermore strengthen our concerns that this user is merely

He/she posted the following on my talk page:

"Greetings, Tody! I just meant that it was not an invasion because the

Battle of Mutah. This is why I have reverted it temporarily and I have used the talk page as well to see what you think. Tell me your advice, please. And thank you for letting me know! From: 137.74.154.248 (talk) 05:00, 4 August 2016 (UTC)"[5]

If we assume good faith, this shows an absence of understanding of the word "invasion". Perhaps reading this link will help him/her - it describes Operation Overlord as "the Allied invasion of north-west Europe in June 1944". This is normal English-language usage of the word "invasion".-- Toddy1 (talk) 07:09, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Is there any report of mass deportation (not enslavement) of people by the Romans? Z 20:27, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

@ZxxZxxZ:, referring to this edit. I totally get what you mean, but I don't think that argument alone (in your edit summary) suffices to remove all that text. While this article indeed is called "Roman-Persian Wars", I believe the single largest "direct" and lasting consequence it had, is that it opened the way for the Arabs. This is something that can not be overlooked. Particularly, for example, changing;

"The expense of resources during the Roman–Persian Wars ultimately proved catastrophic for both empires. The prolonged and escalating warfare of the 6th and 7th centuries left them exhausted and vulnerable in the face of the sudden emergence and expansion of the Caliphate, whose forces invaded both empires only a few years after the end of the last Roman–Persian war."
to
"The climactic war of the 6th and 7th centuries eventually left both empires exhausted and vulnerable in the face of the sudden emergence and expansion of the Arab Muslims, who swiftly conquered the entire Sassanid Empire and most of the Eastern Roman Empire."
...belittles the whole mater a tad too much imo. The same goes for the removal of the part "Benefitting from their weakened (...) rest of North Africa". After all, these were the regions that the Sasanians and Roman-Byzantines fought over in this period that lasted some ~ 700 years. Hence I believe its quite important to be mentioned. All the best, - LouisAragon (talk) 03:22, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Two main points why the lead is so poor:

(1) There are unnecessary information and undue weight in the lead. That removed paragraph discusses the events occurred within years following the end of the wars, and they were the consequence of the last series of the Roman-Persian wars. There are many related articles regarding what happened in during the seven centuries of Roman-Persian wars, a few of which are mentioned and linked in the lead, yet there are links to

Arab conquest of Armenia

. That's obviously an undue weight. Not a single Roman-Persian war is mentioned or wiki-linked in the lead.

(2) The lead is incomplete. An overview of the important wars and turning points should be mentioned. Tactics and strategies, agenda of the parties (which included religion at some point), as well as the vassal states between the borders (which were important parties of these conflicts), are entirely absent in the lead. --Z 12:56, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Pinging User:LouisAragon Z 18:50, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

The lead may not be the best, but I do not believe the best solution is to remove lots of information without adding lots of information in compensation. This article is a featured article after all. --HistoryofIran (talk) 12:15, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

I agree that more detail should be given to the provinces, tactics, and religious aspects, amongst others. Perhaps adding other important wars, apart from the 602-628 one, would indeed be a good addition as well. About the turning points, well, apart from the 602-628 war, there is really not a "decisive" turning point. Yes, there were definetely decisive battles and events during all these centuries (e.g. Edessa, Carrhae), however prior to 602-628, the areas ruled by both factions as well as their spheres of influence, remained roughly the same with only some small changes here and there. - LouisAragon (talk) 13:06, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

@

Arab conquest of Armenia wikilinked in the lead. Too much details in the lead is actually a bad thing and I still believe summarizing that paragraph is helpful. --Z

14:29, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

I have just modified 9 external links on Roman–Persian Wars. 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/20090326055645/http://www.humanities.uci.edu/sasanika/pdf/Theophylact.pdf to http://www.humanities.uci.edu/sasanika/pdf/Theophylact.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090326055645/http://www.humanities.uci.edu/sasanika/pdf/Theophylact.pdf to http://www.humanities.uci.edu/sasanika/pdf/Theophylact.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090326055645/http://www.humanities.uci.edu/sasanika/pdf/Theophylact.pdf to http://www.humanities.uci.edu/sasanika/pdf/Theophylact.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090326055645/http://www.humanities.uci.edu/sasanika/pdf/Theophylact.pdf to http://www.humanities.uci.edu/sasanika/pdf/Theophylact.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090326055645/http://www.humanities.uci.edu/sasanika/pdf/Theophylact.pdf to http://www.humanities.uci.edu/sasanika/pdf/Theophylact.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110522183202/http://www.freewebs.com/vitaphone1/history/sozomen.html to http://www.freewebs.com/vitaphone1/history/sozomen.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110522183202/http://www.freewebs.com/vitaphone1/history/sozomen.html to http://www.freewebs.com/vitaphone1/history/sozomen.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090326055645/http://www.humanities.uci.edu/sasanika/pdf/Theophylact.pdf to http://www.humanities.uci.edu/sasanika/pdf/Theophylact.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090326055645/http://www.humanities.uci.edu/sasanika/pdf/Theophylact.pdf to http://www.humanities.uci.edu/sasanika/pdf/Theophylact.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:12, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Roman–Persian Wars. 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/20080511193856/http://www.shsu.edu/~his_ncp/Parthian.html to http://www.shsu.edu/~his_ncp/Parthian.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080511193856/http://www.shsu.edu/~his_ncp/Parthian.html to http://www.shsu.edu/~his_ncp/Parthian.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110621222019/http://www.ancientsites.com/aw/Post/1048936 to http://www.ancientsites.com/aw/Post/1048936
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090129185336/http://www.iranica.com/newsite/index.isc?Article=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.iranica.com%2Fnewsite%2Farticles%2Funicode%2Fv12f3%2Fv12f3036b.html to http://www.iranica.com/newsite/index.isc?Article=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.iranica.com%2Fnewsite%2Farticles%2Funicode%2Fv12f3%2Fv12f3036b.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090129185336/http://www.iranica.com/newsite/index.isc?Article=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.iranica.com%2Fnewsite%2Farticles%2Funicode%2Fv12f3%2Fv12f3036b.html to http://www.iranica.com/newsite/index.isc?Article=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.iranica.com%2Fnewsite%2Farticles%2Funicode%2Fv12f3%2Fv12f3036b.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110621222019/http://www.ancientsites.com/aw/Post/1048936 to http://www.ancientsites.com/aw/Post/1048936
• Added {{dead link}} tag to https://books.google.com/?id=p7kltwf9yrwC&dq=Lazica,+545
• Added {{dead link}} tag to https://books.google.com/?id=aQspOf291_cC&dq=Theodore,+Shahin
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090129185336/http://www.iranica.com/newsite/index.isc?Article=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.iranica.com%2Fnewsite%2Farticles%2Funicode%2Fv12f3%2Fv12f3036b.html to http://www.iranica.com/newsite/index.isc?Article=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.iranica.com%2Fnewsite%2Farticles%2Funicode%2Fv12f3%2Fv12f3036b.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:20, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

I think only the ones that are actually mentioned in this article should be listed here. --Z 11:26, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

I changed my mind, I think the solution to keep the list short enough to be actually useful is to list the leaders only but not aany commander. I propose this new infobox:

I've added Mithridates IV, and removed all commanders. I also removed "KIA" for Carus (who died of natural causes) and Khosrau II (who was assassinated by the Persians). Quintus Labienus, Odaenathus, Al-Harith ibn Jabalah, Al-Mundhir ibn al-Harith, Al-Mundhir IV ibn al-Mundhir, should be probably listed separately under "Clients/allies", similar to the "Belligerents" section. Other names that could be added there include Parthamaspates of Parthia, Grumbates, Jabalah IV ibn al-Harith †, Gubazes II of Lazica, Tong Yabghu Qaghan, Benjamin of Tiberias --Z 13:10, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

@ZxxZxxZ: Carus died, in all likelihood, of unnatural causes in Sasanian territory.

• "At that point Carus died, probably of unnatural causes as he is said to have been struck by lightning. His younger son Numerian was made co-emperor with his older brother Carinus, who had remained in the west, and the Roman army withdrew to its own territory."-- David Potter (2013). Constantine the Emperor. Oxford University Press. p. 26.

It seems the vast majority contemporary authors, writers and sources such as

Syncellus, mention this as well (Dodgeon; Lieu (2002). The Roman Eastern Frontier and the Persian Wars AD 226-363: A Documentary History. pp. 98-101). - LouisAragon (talk

) 13:32, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Carus' article is packed with

WP:RS sources. I'm planning on rewriting it completely. - LouisAragon (talk

) 13:32, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

The section "Commanders and leaders" in the infobox is too long to be useful, and there is no defined criteria to for inclusion. To solve this, two new lists "Clients/allies" were added to each column, moving the client leaders there, and removing all generals, keeping only the main leaders of the wars. Several client leaders were missing, I added them to these new lists. --Z 14:16, 5 October 2018 (UTC) I also added Himyar to the list of the Persian allies, since we already have the Aksumites in the list of the Roman allies. --Z 14:19, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Definitely an improvement, well done. - LouisAragon (talk) 14:30, 7 October 2018 (UTC)