M. Porcius Cato Posted July 5, 2007 Report Share Posted July 5, 2007 The Wikipedia page, Roman relations with Parthia, is currently riddled with errors, at least in the section "Relations during the Republic". Can anyone with expertise on the history of the Principate see whether that section is as bad? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Primus Pilus Posted July 5, 2007 Report Share Posted July 5, 2007 The Wikipedia page, Roman relations with Parthia, is currently riddled with errors, at least in the section "Relations during the Republic". Can anyone with expertise on the history of the Principate see whether that section is as bad? It's not necessarily wrong per se, but its written in a horridly subjective manner and without much detail. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ASCLEPIADES Posted July 6, 2007 Report Share Posted July 6, 2007 The Wikipedia page, Roman relations with Parthia, is currently riddled with errors, at least in the section "Relations during the Republic". Can anyone with expertise on the history of the Principate see whether that section is as bad? Not being an expert, the main problem that I can found in the aforementioned section is the description of a key character, the parthian prince Pacorus (wrongly described as a roman general); of his 3 or 4 expeditions against Rome, the article only describes the last one against Mark Anthony's soldiers (wrongly described as republicans). Certainly, this can be confusing. www.parthia.com has a nice account of this events. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.