Talk:Sassanid army
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] GA delisted
Reasons given are :
- Could the Ranks subsection be a little more elaborate instead of a pure list, maybe a table or a longer description would be necessary.
- Beside the downfall of the Azadan nobility, there is no mention of any downfall of the Sassanid army, showing that the article isn't broad enough.
- Were there any battle won by this army?
- Where was the army situated in the world ... can we pinpoint that to the modern world. (Might be mentioned in the lead section though not present in the article).
- 2 / 5 images fail to give their Fair Use rationale. Lincher 20:38, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
My primary concern is that too much weight is given to secondary sources such as Farrokh, Nicolle, etc. Primary or near primary sources such as Maurikios' Strategikon, Ammianus, Al-Tabari etc are not cited. Doug Me
A secondary concern is that the use of the name 'Sassanid' is now deprecated by most scholars. The preferred usage is 'Sasanian'. In addition, the distinction between Clibinari and Cataphracts is fanciful. Compare the equipment lists and see where they are derived from. Tabari refers to an inspection of cavalry equipment, there is no contemporary primary evidence of two equipment lists. A cataphract is usually a term reserved for a fully armoured charging cavalryman riding a fully-armoured horse. Clibinari are thought to have been less well-armoured, specifically the horse.
In real terms there is no justification for the use of the term Clibinari in this article. It was a Romano-Byzantine term referring to their own heavily armoured cavalry. Sasanian cavalry could be Asvaran, Diqhuan or a variety of other terms. Doug Me —Preceding comment was added at 04:44, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Images Non-Encyclopedic
I would suggest that iamges from a vide game are non-encyclopedic and should be deleted from the article. Unless there is any objection, I will do so and upload some of the monumental artwork showing Sassanid cavalry instead.Larry Dunn 14:34, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
- No objections, so I removed the video game image and replaced it with actual period art -- the Taq-e Bostan relief.Larry Dunn 15:57, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Khusrau I infantry
The article contains this statement: For instance during Khosrau I era, his infantry were more disciplined and better equipped than Byzantine legions.
Two problems.
1) Byzantine infantry were not organized into "legions"
2) I don't remember ever having read this. Sassanid infantry are usually described as levies, with light infantry in support. Can someone please cite the source for this assertion on the article? Thanks.Larry Dunn 16:07, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
- Just tagged the assertion.Larry Dunn 16:07, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
According with one of the better links of the article, http://www.cais-soas.com/CAIS/Military/sasanian_military.htm
The sassanid infantry wasn't exactly crack troops, and couldn't be compared with the roman infantry (only in archery); but contrary to the Procopious opinion about this infantry, many accounts of battles show that they did well their job, using a tactic based on a shield-spears wall covering the fire of the archers. So yes, we should change the article to a more accurate vision.
-Fco
[edit] Adazan nobility section
This section uses many words, either interchangably or apparently as sub-ranks within the adazan nobility -- to the reader it's not at all clear which one is meant. Would someone with more background in this please clean it up?Larry Dunn 18:15, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
Could someone please help me upload a picture of the Asawaran (Azatan)? For some reason the image is not encoding correctly, it's called "Sasanian_Caliban__Standard-Bearer.gif". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bagrationi (talk • contribs) 16:22, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

