Talk:Battle of Carrhae

Rewriting the Battle section

The Battle section was poorly written and inaccurate in many ways, and used inferior sources. I completely rewrote it, based mainly on Plutarch and Cassius Dio. I will check it for grammar and add citations soon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Caius Magnus (talk • contribs) 09:19, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Possible copyright infringement, take two

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)

We will not e-mail you. That is not how Wikipedia works. In general, it's highly irregular to post large sections of copyrighted text verbatim, so there's no strong convention to follow, but you have to openly and unambiguously specify the precise permission you've been given. I would suggest that you put a notice at the bottom along the following lines:

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)

Anti-Roman Bias

I wrote the original article (although my IP address is different at this point) and I now realize that I was being a little too biased against the Romans (i.e. excessively belittling them). I guess this was the fault of the sources I used (easy found by googling "Battle of Carrhae"), which were inherently Pro-Parthian/Anti-Roman. I welcome anyone to fix this bias. - Original Author — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.23.23.52 (talk) 04:04, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

---

Wow, what pride whether its anti Roman or not, bottom line the romans get pounded here, i don't understand why people don't accept it, I'm Roman I do.The same thing with the greeks on wikipedia. Whta if we were Egypt, man invaded every other year.

Yes but you are quite clearly not an historian of any calibre whatsoever. Plus I think the term used nowadays is Italian. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arvand (talk • contribs) 22:54, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

10,000 soldiers and slaves

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)

the liquian myth is double in this article, with different meanings. it is discarded anyway, see www.nature.com/articles/jhg200782 second, isnt there any archeological finding to prove the wole war story, which we only know of from roman sources? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.69.75.181 (talk) 11:29, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Osroene chieftain Ariamnes

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)