Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Peer review/Roman–Parthian War of 58–63

Roman–Parthian War of 58–63

The article passed GA back in September, and has remained basically unaltered since, because I can't think of adding anything more of substance to it, given the limited sources. I would like some input from other editors on the overall quality of the article, how it reads, and where there is room for improvement or expansion. I intend to nominate it for FA later, so please be as picky as you can. :) Constantine ✍ 23:53, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wandalstouring

At the end of this chapter you're talking about Corbulo taking one and a half legion with him when it was a greed to take only 1,000 men. I know, you're using Tacitus, but this needs to be reviewed using a scientific secondary source because it sounds more like an excuse for Corbulo who absolutely didn't want to give the slightest appearance of negotiability to his enemy while still sending reports home that he followed instructions and tried to "negotiate".

In this chapter you're talking about the Parthians "customarily disliking" siegework. That should be clarified using a scientific secondary source. The Parthians were heavy and light cavalry based on feudal levies augmented with low status infantry from their realm. So it wasn't about a nation disliking something, but about cavalry vs. infantry. Siegework was dirty work and the noble heavy cavalry in any army didn't do such tasks (show me an example of members of the equestrian order physically contributing to siegeworks). The archers were needed to supress enemy fire and thus make it possible to make any progress with the siege.Wandalstouring (talk) 09:35, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have raised good points. I have tried to clarify both, I hope they are in order now. Any other comments? How does it read overall? Is it deficient in any area? Regards, Constantine ✍ 11:19, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They have been sufficiently adressed. Wandalstouring (talk) 10:29, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Sweeney

Should the article title not be Roman–Parthian War of 58–63 AD ?. I know BC would be 63 - 58 but some readers may now be sure.

Armenia had been a Roman client state since the days of Emperor Augustus The dates could be added here as I had to click on the link to see when Augustus was emperor. It could read Armenia had been a Roman client state since xxBC in the days of Emperor Augustus

You do have a point. I'll try to add some more concrete dates on the subject. Constantine ✍ 13:47, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In this statement would be the first of a long series of wars between Rome and Iranian powers over Armenia Iran did not excist as a county so it should be changed to Parthia.

Please note that I am saying "Iranian" and not "Iran". The Parthians and Persians were Iranian peoples, and their own name for their country was Ērān, i.e. "Iran". Constantine ✍ 13:47, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In this line The conflict ended soon after, in an effective stalemate and a formal compromise: a Parthian prince of the Arsacid line would henceforth sit on the Armenian throne - Arsacid links to a disambiguation page could your check which is the correct link.

OK, fixed. Constantine ✍ 13:47, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Parthian Empire redirects to Arsacid Empire a comment could be made that the Partian Empire was also known as the Arsacid Empire.

There is a strange thing going on: Parthian Empire and Arsacid Empire are one page, while a separate Parthia article exists, which incorporates the empire. Furthermore, the name "Parthian Empire" is far more common, from what I've seen than, the term "Arsacid Empire" which has been chosen as a header. And, as I see, the Arsacid Empire page began as a fork from the Parthia article. So I'll be consistent and use the link to Parthia, which is a more fleshed-out article, throughout. Constantine ✍ 13:47, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you check the dates we have 20BC - 37AD and 51 - 54 without the AD suffix it would make it easier to read if it was added or prehaps use ; In the year 51 ?

Good point, although it should be clear. I'll add the "AD" after the remaining years. Constantine ✍ 13:47, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the Diplomatic maneuvers and preparations section the bulk of his army came from Syria, where half the garrison of four legions and their auxiliaries I am not sure about this one. An expert in the Roman Army might help but I'm sure the Auxiliaries were formed units in their own right and not part of the Legions.

Hmmm, it is poorly worded. I'll try to reword this however to dispel any notion of the auiliaries "belonging" to the legions. Constantine ✍ 13:47, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will revist the article later but the rest looks good after a quick read - well done Jim Sweeney (talk) 14:42, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks for your time. Constantine ✍ 13:47, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]