Talk:Battle of Callinicum

Untitled

Hi, i think there is a mistake in the result of this battle, according to britanica it was a persian victory. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.67.221.58 (talk) 14:00, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Edit-warring a hand-made WP:OR map into the article

This must stop. The creator of a handmade map based on original research is edit-warring it into the article. The creator has been warned about the map at commons by admin Future Perfect at Sunrise but seems intent at edit-waring it into the article. He has also attempted to intimidate me on my talk supplying nonsense arguments. I think the map is an amateur attempt based on original research and as such it is unsuitable for the article. It may also be a handmade copy of another map as Future Perfect at Sunrise told this user at commons and as such it may be a possible copyright violation. For all these reasons this map is unacceptable for use in this article. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 21:52, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Agreed, the unsourced image has no place here. SamWilson989 (talk) 22:00, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Can the image stay off of the article until a consensus is formed deciding otherwise. As per WP:ONUS, Parsa1993 requires consensus on here. Currently, consensus is against the image being added. Thank you, SamWilson989 (talk) 23:34, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Sam. I fully agree that the image must stay off the article because the current consensus is against its inclusion. Also, in addition to the reasons already stated above, the edit-warring editor has a COI for including it because he is the creator of the image. He should let others decide on its inclusion into the article and not try to edit-war his/her image into the article against consensus. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 00:34, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Firefox Iani and his edit warring IP

Would user:Firefox Iani care to supply a link, quote or page number for their opinion(s)? --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:06, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Pyrrhic victory

The result of the battle does not fit well into definition of a Pyrrhic victory, because in this case, even if no battle were fought, the Persians still wouldn't take any cities. The invasion was already a failure after Belisarius managed to pursue the Persians with an army before they were able to capture any fortification, this is evident from the fact that Belisarius initially didn't want a battle as he succeeded in driving off the Persians, so the Persians were no longer willing to continue their campaign in Syria.

The cited source mentions the result simply as "victory" elsewhere, there also other wordings in other sources, e.g. "costly victory" by Iranica. My suggestion is: "Tactical Sasanian victory, no territorial changes" --Z 15:00, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

GA review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Battle of Callinicum/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: A.Cython (talk · contribs) 01:28, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

Reviewer: TheNuggeteer (talk · contribs) 07:26, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

Will review this for WP:GARC. 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 (My "blotter") 07:26, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

Summary

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, list incorporation, and table accessibility.
2. Verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
	2c. it contains no original research.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, have suitable captions, and have alt text.
	7. Overall assessment.

Writing, broadness, and neutrality

• Lead - The remaining infantry hold off → The remaining infantry held off
  •  Done
• Lead - The unexpected invasion caught the Byzantines off guard this is an opinion. Some people could have felt the invasion to be unexpected; some could have felt the opposite. There is no need for "unexpected" to be here.
  •  Done
• Prelude - Battle of Dara is mentioned in the lead but not here. This could explain why Kavadh I sent thousands to the Byzantine empire.
  •  Done added a brief paragraph summarizing the events of the Iberian War just before the battle
• Prelude - Azarethes sent a message to Belisarius urging him to observe the fast out of respect for the Christians and Jews in his army, as well as for Belisarius's own Christian soldiers. Christian(s) and Belisarius is redundant or not needed here. You could rephrase it as Azarethes sent a message to Belisarius urging him to observe the fast out of respect for the Christians and Jews in his army and his own religious soldiers.
  •  Done per your suggestion
• Prelude - Unable to persuade his men to abandon their demands and fearing that they might mutiny → Unable to persuade his men to abandon their demands and fearing that they might stage a mutiny
• Deployment - In full-date instances in the body and infobox, you add AD, but in the first sentence here, you do not include it. This is inconsistent.
  •  Done removed "AD" it should be obvious the era
• Battle - This maneuver was not observed by Belisarius and proved to be a turning point. how? Byzantine casualties were still the largest at this stage, and if more damage was made, then there would not be a turning point.
  • Comment: Upto this point the two armies were exchanging arrows and the balance was evenly matched. The rearrangement of troops by the Persians was a turning point because they were able to take the upper hand.
  •  Done I trimmed a bit to make it more clear.
• Battle - As the remainder of the Byzantine cavalry fled why did they flee? I assume because the Persian army killed many of them, but this should be stated in the text.
  • Comment: Well that's where the primary sources get a bit unclear.
• Battle - center of the "U" loosing arrows is "loosing" a typo?
  •  Done changed to "fired"
• Battle - The primary sources reporting this phase of the battle are confusing. this reads like personal opinion
  • Comment: Hughes and other describe it as such because each primary source gives a different depiction of the events
    • Hughes p. 63 It is at the point, where the battle comes to the infantry, that there is confusion in the sources.
    • p. 69 Unfortunately we do not know exactly what happened next due to the fog of war. Procopius states that Arethas did not wait for the oncoming enemy but fled immediately. ... The account of Malalas however is entirely different, but it has the advantage of being based on the official report made afterwards.
  •  Done Rewrote it
• Aftermath - Persian heavy losses, small size of the captured booty, and failing → Persian heavy losses, small size of the captured booty, and failure
  •  Done
• Aftermath - 11,000 lbs first (and only) use of "lbs" should probably be spelled out.
  •  Done
• I added and removed commas in an edit. You may want to see what I have changed.
  • Y Thanks

Sources and verification

• 1: Y
• 8: Y
• 11: Y
• 25: Y

I am done with the prose part of the review. The rest will continue about an hour or two from now. 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 (My "blotter") 07:26, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

@A.Cython: I am finished with the review. You may address my concerns. 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 (My "blotter") 11:03, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

@TheNuggeteer Thank you for your thorough review. I believe I have addressed your comments. If I missed something please let me know. Thank you. A.Cython(talk) 19:43, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

@A.Cython: Thank you so much for addressing my comments and for expanding the article to GA status. I will pass this now, congratulations! 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 (My "blotter") 12:12, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Did you know nomination

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that during the Battle of Callinicum, Byzantine troops were so eager to fight while fasting for Easter that they threatened mutiny if they were denied battle?

• Source: Syvänne, Ilkka (2021). Military History of Late Rome 518–565 p. 68 This was the last place where the Romans could engage the enemy, and the Roman officers and soldiers were eager to fight thanks to the previous victories. Belisarius and Hermogenes tried their best to oppose this, but they were in the end forced to lead the men to combat or they would have faced mutiny. Belisarius and Hermogenes now had even more reason for their cautious approach, because by this time the soldiers were exhausted from their long march, and the Easter fasting did not help either.

• • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Ekhof-Theater

Improved to Good Article status by A.Cython (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 46 past nominations.

A.Cython(talk) 20:43, 26 September 2026 (UTC).

• General eligibility:
• New enough:
• Long enough:
• Other problems:

Policy compliance:

• Adequate sourcing:
• Neutral:
• Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:
• Other problems:

Hook eligibility:

• Cited:
• Interesting:
• Other problems:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: New enough (GA on 21, nominated at 26), long enough, no issue regarding prose, 4.8% on earwig, no issue regarding the hook, QPQ is done. GTG Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 14:53, 28 September 2026 (UTC)