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)

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)

This 10,000 of horsemen and slaves in Plutarch refers to the court of Susena, not to the army he commanded? If that's the reference for the 10,000 figure then it's a mistake. If there other ancient sources that provide a figure of 10,000 though, can someone include it? (for now I put a "citation eneded")Barjimoa (talk) 15:41, 28 May 2025 (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)

Unbalanced view of a single military historian

After the recent edits which are otherwise good, the Assessment section has five paragraphs dedicated to the opinions of a single historian, Hospodor. These are good faith additions but since other modern assessments aren't mentioned, a shorter summary would suffice here. I don't think it should be nearly as detailed as the Battle section. Soidling (talk) 14:04, 13 July 2025 (UTC)