Talk:Battle of Carrhae

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Battle of Carrhae article.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

	Battle of Carrhae is part of WikiProject Iran, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Iran-related topics. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of objectives.
???	This article has not yet been assigned a rating on the Project's quality scale.
???	This article has not yet been assigned a rating on the Project's importance scale.
	After rating the article, please provide a short summary on the article's ratings summary page to explain your ratings and/or identify the strengths and weaknesses.

	This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Additional information and associated task forces: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces (periods and conflicts): Classical warfare task force (c. 700 BC–c. 500 AD)

Contents 1 Incorrect use of the lorica segmenta 2 Possible copyright infringement 3 Possible copyright infringement, take two 4 Testudo 5 Anti-Roman Bias 6 Corrections 7 The testedo

[edit] Incorrect use of the lorica segmenta

The Romans at this time did not use lorica segmenta armor. Iron band armor only became widespread during the 2nd century CE, especially during Trajan's time period. The standard armor for heavy infantry-Roman legionaries would have been specialized chainmail. I have corrected the link to lead to the lorica hamata page.

Intranetusa 00:26, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

The style of the article is ridiculously un-encyclopedia-like: "but our story begins not further to the East, but in Rome!" 128.237.241.229 06:34, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Possible copyright infringement

The text of this article (in the 06:33, 16 Feb 2005 version) looks a lot like the description of the battle in the "Rome: Total War" computer game. I only own the Spanish version of the game, so I can't be sure that the text is copied verbatim, but the structure is very similar, so at the very least they share the same origin.

That would also explain the "un-encyclopedia-like" style.

Maybe someone can confirm with an English version of the game?

In any case, I find the older, shorter version of the article (up to and including 23:54, 21 Jan 2005) much better written. 80.58.1.111 11:26, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The game mentions the Parthians killing Crassus by pouring molten gold down his throat - the article doesn't. Kazak

I think they made that up for the game. Plutarch says

a Parthian, named Pomaxathres, killed Crassus. Some say that it was not Pomaxathres, but another, who killed Crassus, and that Pomaxathres cut off the head and right hand when Crassus was lying on the ground.... Surena sent the head and hand of Crassus to Hyrodes in Armenia; and, causing a report to be carried by messengers to Seleukeia that he was bringing Crassus alive, he got ready a kind of ridiculous procession which, in mockery, he called a triumph. (Plutarch, Life of Crassus, XXXI–XXXII.)

while Dio Cassius says:

Crassus fell among the rest, whether he was slain by one of his own men to prevent his capture alive, or whether by the enemy because he was wounded anyway. This was his end. And the Parthians, as some say, poured gold into his mouth in mockery; for though a man of great wealth he was so eager for money as to pity those who could not support an enrolled legion from their own means, regarding them as poor men. (Dio Cassius, Roman History, book 40).

so it's pretty clear that Crassus was killed in the battle and if gold was poured into his mouth it was done after his death. Gdr 00:49, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

There is a medieval map (the Vercelli Map) that, in a caption, says "here the Parthians fed to Crassus a drink of molten gold", so the execution by molten gold is a fact. I doubt the game would have any reason to make that up in either case. Cossack 22:57, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

How is that fact? That sentence could easily refer to Crassus's corpse, it does not mention whether he was alive or dead. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.99.138.2 (talk) 13:35, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

killing him by pouring molten gold down his throat is certainly a more exciting story, whihc is why it's often repeated. doesn't make it true. for me it's unlikely, if he was so rich and captured alive why not ransom him for a lot of money? and few Roman nobles were ever captured alive by their enemies. 217.7.209.108 08:57, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Testudo

There is no mention whatsoever in the records of the battle of Carrhae of legionaries assuming the testudo formation.

WILL PEOPLE STOP USING COMPUTER GAME MANUALS AS REFERENCE MATERIAL!

Furthermore, shields pinnend to soldiers' arms and hands are likely to be rare incidents highlighted by ancient authors for dramatic effect.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Tortoise_formation"

[edit] 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

---

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.

[edit] Corrections

I corrected some of the rough grammar in the "Battle" section text. The article (as many articles on Wikipedia do) probably needs more sources or references listed at the bottom, especially printed sources (not game manuals), since they are often more reliable than Internet references. Cla68 16:40, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I removed this sentence "Therefore, a strong truth lies in the myth: the faults of the Roman army exposed at Carrhae (such as its vulnerability to cavalry on open ground) were never fixed, and even recurred, as in the much later catastrophe at Adrianople against Gothic cavalry." This is a popular view on the battle of Adrianople but the battle was lost due to the Roman army being halfdeployed on the opening of the battle, not the cavalry. The Gothic cavalry was only lightly equipped and armored, very unlike Parthian cataphracts. Their charge cut the Roman army in pieces as they were out of formation. The rest of the battle turnt into vicious infantry fights, supposedly the Goths using column tactics to further take the Roman lines apart. The Gothic cavalry was only essential in finalizing the victory by hunting down the routers. The late imperial army of Rome was actually quite adept and varied to face all the range of threats along the long imperial border. This also includes the introduction of increasingly heavy shock cavalry quite like Parthian cataphracts. Mangalores 05-03-2007

[edit] The testedo

You are right that the romans didnt use testeudo but crassus did in fact put his men in a square formation which in the end lead to the defeat of the romans because they were so packed together that the parthians could hit them without aiming. Though I believe the Romans getting arrows pinned to their hands is true due to the fact that many eastern armies used a composite bow which could pierce the legion scutum shield and Hamata Segemta armor with ease.(you can correct me at the battle if they used Hamata Semta or Lorica Segemta) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.201.78.56 (talk) 03:56, 27 February 2007 (UTC).