This article is ratedStart-class on Wikipedia'scontent assessment scale. It is of interest to the followingWikiProjects:

Classical Greece and Rome This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Classical Greece and Rome, a group of contributors interested in Wikipedia's articles on classics. If you would like to join the WikiProject or learn how to contribute, please see ourproject page. If you need assistance from a classicist, please see ourtalk page.Classical Greece and RomeWikipedia:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeTemplate:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeClassical Greece and Rome ??? This article has not yet received a rating on theproject's importance scale. Military history:Middle East /Roman & Byzantine /Classical This article is within the scope of theMilitary history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see alist of open tasks. To use this banner, please see thefull instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history This article has been checked against the followingcriteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation:criterion not met Coverage and accuracy:criterion not met Structure:criterion met Grammar and style:criterion met Supporting materials:criterion met Associated task forces: /  Middle Eastern military history task force Roman and Byzantine military history task force Classical warfare task force (c. 700 BC – c. 500 AD)

This article is about a minor incident or a skirmish, it should be renamed accordingly.Encyclopedia Iranica says "This “minor incident of uncertain date” (Sprengling, pp. 108-109), has been turned by Roman historians and their modern successors (Felix, pp. 809 with literature) into repeated routings of Šāpur by an ally of Rome" whileSouthern says it was a skirmish. But perhaps I'm missing something.@HistoryofIran,Paramandyr, andLouisAragon:. Your thoughts ?---Wikaviani^{(talk)(contribs)}10:45, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Wikaviani. I am unfortunately very rusty on this subject, and would have to dive into a lot ofWP:RS to be get a good picture of this event and the consensus/dispute surrounding it. I'll add it on the to do list, but here's hoping someone will beat me to it.HistoryofIran (talk)11:06, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, so far I've found2 3 instances that mention Shapur may have been addressing internal and/or issues on the eastern border of the Sasanian Empire. Which is not mentioned in this article, yet Pat Southern is used more than 10 times.

• How Rome Fell Death of a Superpower, Adrian Keith Goldsworthy, page 136.
• Empress Zenobia: Palmyra’s Rebel Queen, Pat Southern, page 73.
• Rome and Persia at War: Imperial Competition and Contact, Peter Edwell, page 113-114.

AND, the entire article ignores what the Encyclopaedia Iranica states, "But, as Henning (1939, p. 843 [= 1977, p. 621]) has explained: "The transport through the desert of a very great number of prisoners besides the Persian army was a difficult enterprise; the fact that Šāpur succeeded in this (as proven by the presence of the provincials in Susiana) shows sufficiently how much the usual accounts of the exploits of Odenathus against the Persians on their desert march are exaggerated"."

Whereas, this article has been created using Roman primary sources(used at least 10 times) to depict something else. --Kansas Bear20:26, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This source,

• Empires of Ancient Eurasia: The First Silk Roads Era, 100 BCE – 250 CE, Craig Benjamin, page 245, "...and by 262 CE the Kushan royal cities at Begram and Taxila had been destroyed by Sasanian forces." --Kansas Bear02:26, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you very much, I tried to represent what Iranica says, but this article needs a major rewrite. The content of the body should be changed in order to fit with what thereliable sources say. Besides, the outcome should be something like "disputed" and detailed in a specific section in which the dicersity of viewpoints of the sources could be fairly represented. I will try to handle that rewrite later. Best.---Wikaviani^{(talk)(contribs)}06:46, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And this source,

• The Oxford World History of Empire, Volume Two: The History of Empires, ed. Peter Fibiger Bang, C.A. Bayly, Walter Scheidel, page 342,"By 262 Begram and Taxila had been destroyed by Sasanian forces under the leadership of Ardashir's son Shapur I..." --Kansas Bear12:49, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks very much. Do you mean that the inclusion of content about the offensives of the Sasanian forces on their eastern borders would be useful for this article ?---Wikaviani^{(talk)(contribs)}07:36, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think this article needs to be rewritten along the same lines asMilitary campaigns of Tigranes the Great. Remove the primary sources(which are biased), replace with secondary sources(if possible), and toss the infobox. In the Military campaigns of Tigranes article I mention two factors which allowed Tigranes to expand his empire. Granted it was only one sentence but that is all that was needed. I think we shouldn't depict Shapur I being involved in every aspect of this campaign(which is how the infobox portrays it) when he was clearly somewhere else burning cities. That is how I would do it.--Kansas Bear14:42, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, sounds perfectly fine. Thanks again for your time, I will try to do that in the near future. Take care.---Wikaviani^{(talk)(contribs)}15:28, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have written this article using roman primary sources, my mistake. However, I have to admit something, that these primary sources aren't always wrong, sometimes the secondary or modern sources use the primary ones as sources for their text. Anyways, if the article must be rewritten, then I suggest to completely do it from scratch, maybe include two different point of views, one for the primary sources and one that talks about the opinions of modern historians.Hollowww (talk)16:38, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a minor incident or a skirmish, it should be renamed Firstly, I want to clarify the introduction of the article. there is a huge misunderstanding here. The sources cited (De Blois 1976, p. 3; Southern 2008, p. 59; and Encyclopaedia Iranica) do not refer to the entire campaigns of Odaenathus (which Odaenathus had more than one campaign) but to a clash that happened near the Euphrates, where Odaenathus' army supposedly attacked the Persians from the rear and defeated their army. while the magnitude of the result is disputed, the battle alone does not correspond to the other different campaigns that Odaenathus conducted. Secondly, because of this same reason, the article should be renamed back to

Odaenathus' Sasanian Campaigns

Also numerous sources mentioned Odaenathus' series of campaigns and his victories in which the campaign should be restored back to Palmyrene victory as well:

• Britannica: In 260 he inflicted a severe defeat on Shāpūr’s army as it was returning home after sacking Antioch... Beginning in 262 he drove the Persians from the Roman provinces of Mesopotamia and Osroëne, and he probably also brought Armenia back into the empire.
• The detailed history of Arabs before Islam (in Arabic) Second Volume, page: 634-635,by Jawad Ali:

he gathered whatever forces he had and swiftly surprised the Sassanians with an attack that terrified them, striking such fear into them that they abandoned to him most of what they had obtained as spoils from their war with the Romans. They also lost some of the king's wives, who fell captive into the hands of Odaenathus's forces. The king of Palmyra was not satisfied with this revenge alone, but hastened in the year 263 CE to attack Mesopotamia, where he defeated Shapur, then besieged his capital, CtesiphonThe Sassanians continued to fight against Odaenathus in hopes of defeating him and taking revenge upon him until the year 265 CE, but they were not successful, asOdaenathus was murdered. Shapur was never being able to take his revenge against him.

as well as the same book but volume 3 page 94:

Perhaps Odaenathus' increasing pressure on the Persians, which compelled them to abandon Dura, thereby cleared the way for the Roman garrison to return to this city, Odaenathus managed to liberate Mesopotamia from the Persians and conquered Nisibis and Harran.

• Syvänne, Ilkka (2019).The Reign of Emperor Gallienus: The Apogee of Roman Cavalry, Pen & Sword Military.ISBN 978-1-526-74521-7 page 203:Odaenathus’ victory over Persia had been a Pyrrhic victory

——————————

page 151-152: he retook Nisibis, Carrhae and Mesopotamia almost immediately, then defeated Shapur himself and pursued Shapur and Shapur’s children as far as Ctesiphon, capturing Shapur’s concubines and a great amount of booty. However, on the basis of the HA ( Gall .10.1ff.) it is possible that the re-conquest of Carrhae and Nisibis took place later in 264.If this is true then, Odaenathus would actually have conducted three campaigns against the Persians: the first in 259–261, in the course of which he pursued Shapur up to Ctesiphon and from where he then returned to fight the Macriani; the second in 264, when he re-conquered Nisibis and Carrhae; and the third in 266–267 against Ctesiphon, after which he turned back to face the Goths Whatever the truth, Odaenathus appears to have received Gallienus’ order to return to crush Macrianus when Odaenathus was fighting in the neighbourhood of Ctesiphon in 261. The other reason for his readiness to retreat back to Roman territory was of course the fact that the Persian satraps were harassing his forces that were besieging Ctesiphon. Consequently, he was quite ready to obey. There also exists a dedication which praises Septimius Herodianus (likely to be Odaenathus’s eldest son Herodes) for his victory over the Persians near the Orontes River. This dedication has been used as evidence that Herodes inflicted a serious defeat on the Persians and forced them to retreat from Antioch. One may make the educated guess that this defeat together with the successes of Odaenathus forced Shapur to start his retreat that then led to the battle in which Shapur was defeated and forced to flee to Ctesiphon

• Ando, Clifford (2012).Imperial Rome AD 193 to 284: The Critical Century. Edinburgh University Press.ISBN 978-0-7486-5534-2, p. 172: Odaenathus undertooktwo expeditions against Shapur under his own command, in 262 and 265/6, during the second of which he recovered the former province of Mesopotamia and sacked Ctesiphon
• Drinkwater, John (2005).Maximinus to Diocletian and the 'Crisis'. In Bowman, Alan K.; Garnsey, Peter; Cameron, Averil (eds.). The Crisis of Empire, AD 193-337. The Cambridge Ancient History. Vol. 12 (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press. pp. 28–66. ISBN 978-0-521-30199-2, p. 45: "Emboldened by his success, in 262 he campaigned against the Persians in Mesopotamia, recovered Nisibis and Carrhae, and may also (possibly also in 262) have reached Ctesiphon. A further deep invasion of Persian territory may have occurred around 266.
• Millar, Fergus (1993).The Roman Near East, 31 B.C.–A.D. 337. Harvard University Press. ISBN 978-0-674-77886-3, p. 169: "... that he recovered Mesopotamia, including the cities of Nisibis and Carrhae (if they had really been taken by the Persians, we do not know when), and that at some point his forces advanced as far as Ctesiphon."
• Watson, Alaric (2004).Aurelian and the Third Century. London: Psychology Press. ISBN 0-415-30187-4, p. 32: "In 262 he managed to wrest northern Mesopotamia from Persian control, recapturing the vital stronghold of Nisibis, and launched a counter-invasion into the Persian empire. ... A few years later, in 266 or 267, he returned to the offensive and met with still greater success. This time he even reached the capital, Ctesiphon, though he was unable to take it."

thoughts? concerns? (pinging @Wikaviani and @Kansas Bear who were involved in this discussion)R3YBOl(🌲)19:16, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's been over 15 days since no one has replied, Should the article be renamed back as its old name and start expanding it or should I wait? (pinging the same users who were involved in the discussion again: @Wikaviani @Kansar Bear)R3YBOl(🌲)09:53, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Britannica is not areliable source, I already told you that Jawad Ali doesn't sound lke a great source if his views ae not shared by Western academics, Syvänne, Ilkka is not saying that Odaenathus mounted 3 campaigns but says that this ispossible, Ando Clifford is not a reliable source and I am a bit surprised to see that you suggest it whileyou were the one whoraised concerns about its reliability ... Drinkwater's sentence "A further deep invasion of Persian territorymay have occurred around 266." is not convincing either while Millar does not mention several campaigns. Lastly, Watson is the only reliable source of your list who explicitly mention several campaigns, while, on the other side, Iranica says that this event is exaggerated. All in all, I'm not convinced that the name of this article should be changed.---Wikaviani^{(talk)(contribs)}00:47, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Great to see you againWikaviani, I am glad that you finally replied. Regarding Britannica reliability, days after I have sent my message here, I figured out that Britannica is considered an unreliable source perWP:BRITANNICA so you're right on this one. However, your statement thatJawad Ali doesn't sound like a great source if his views are not shared by Western academics does not change the fact that he's a reliable source.WP:RS evaluates sources based on academic credentials and institutional backing and on not geographic approval from Western academics. Regarding Syvänne, you're mischaracterizing his work. While you claim that he used the word "possible", he provides specific details including exact date from the beginning to the end of Odaenathus' campaignsand even stated that Odaenathus achieved victory over persia. When a reliable source provides detailed chronology and outcomes, this constitutes substantial evidence, not mere speculation.while, on the other side, Iranica says that this event is exaggerated. While explaining how the battle near the Euphrates in 260 is exaggerated, Iranica only talks about that clash; anything else of Odaenathus' campaigns is not mentioned anywhere here, but it is in most modern bibliographical sources, such as Alaric Watson, who you deemedthe only reliable source of your list who explicitly mention several campaigns. Regarding Drinkwater, you stated that his sentence "A further deep invasion of Persian territory may have occurred around 266."is not convincing, while completely ignoring the previous sentences that state "Emboldened by his success, in 262 he campaigned against the Persians in Mesopotamia, recovered Nisibis and Carrhae, and may also (possibly also in 262) have reached Ctesiphon.", clearly explaining that Odaenathus had conducted more than one campaign. Millar, instead, does not indeed state that Odaenathus had conducted more than one campaign, but stated his achievements, such as the recovering of Mesopotamia, including the cities of Nisibis and Carrhae. Syvänne agrees, and states that "Odaenathus’ victory over Persia had been a Pyrrhic victory", clearly implying that Odaenathus' campaigns weresuccessful.

And as one of the other sources I just found recently that mentioned Odaenathus' campaigns,The Collins Encyclopedia of Military History: From 3500 B.C. to the Present by Dupuy, R. E. and Dupuy, T. N.: on page 153 states:"259-261. The Rise of Odaenathus of Palmyra. Septimus Odaenathus,"prince of Palmyra, was a Romanized Arab. Apparently he preferred to accept Roman authority rather than Persian. He may have tried to obtain Shapur's good will after the capture of Valerian; either his efforts were rebuffed or he was merely gaining time while raising a new Roman-Arab army to dispute Shapur's control of the Roman dominions of the East.The threat of Odaenathus small army seems to have caused Shapur to withdraw eastward from Cappadocia (261). West of the Euphrates River, Odaenathus and his small army surprised and routed the Persians, who were carrying great quantities of booty from Antioch and Asia Minor. Abandoning most of their loot. the Persians fled across the river, harassed by Odaenathus' light cavalry.

a splitted part mentioned his other series of campaigns (Which proves that he conducted more than one campaign): "262-264. Odaenathus Invades Persia." Having been substantially reinforced by Gallienus. Odaenathus invaded the lost Roman provinces east of the Euphrates with a small army composed mainly of light foot archers, heavy cataphracts and lancers, and irregular light Arabian cavalry. He drove off a Persian army investing Edessa, and recaptured Nisibis and Carrhae (262). In the two following years he harassed Armenia and raided deep into Mesopotamia. consistently defeating Shapur and his lieutenants, and twice capturing Ctesiphon, the Sassanid capital.Apparently Odaenathus was accompanied and assisted on hiscampaigns by his beautiful and able wife, Zenobia.Shapur sued for peace (264).

on page 174, a full page discussing shapur's campaigns and other wars he fought in....

where it was mentioned "261-266. Shapur's Wars with Odaenathus of Palmyra."The Persians were driven from Rome's Asiatic provinces (see p. 153). these are so many evidence that proved Odaenathus conducted more than a campaign. and now we even have a source that indicated the result so we could restore the infobox and work on other.Finally, I think the name should be changed and you may check again, and that the article has got a great potential and as well should be expanded to host more information. I hope you change your mind. BestR3YBOl(🌲)18:44, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Wikaviani, it's been a week since my last response and clarifications. Given the evidence from Watson, Syvänne, Drinkwater, Jawad Ali, and the Collins Encyclopedia documenting multiple distinct campaigns (259-267), and considering that Iranica's comments about exaggeration only apply to the single 260 CE incident rather than Odaenathus's entire military record, I believe the case for renaming and expanding this article is solid. Do you have any further objections, or can I move forward with the changes?R3YBOl(🌲)22:17, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Due to report issues involving @Hollowww, the page needs to be rewrited. In my opinion, it needs to be rewrited from scratch under the name ofRoman-Parthian War of 260–266, as the campaign involved Roman generals likeBalista andMacrianus Major before the campaigns ofOdaenathus. The rewriting needs to be done in a separate space like adraft or auser subpage. Let me know if this rewriting starts, because I've collected some information about the campaigns previous to Odaenathus' ones and I can contribute. Best, ---HistoriaDrusiana (talk)14:38, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 17:09, 11 April 2025 Wikaviani talk contribs block  90 bytes +90  Wikaviani moved page Odaenathus' Sasanian Campaigns to Odaenathus' Sasanian Campaign: The article itself speaks of a single "campaign", that was in reality, a skirmish or a minor incident according to some sources.

• Start-Class Classical Greece and Rome articles
• Unknown-importance Classical Greece and Rome articles
• All WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome pages
• Start-Class military history articles
• Start-Class Middle Eastern military history articles
• Middle Eastern military history task force articles
• Start-Class Roman and Byzantine military history articles
• Roman and Byzantine military history task force articles
• Start-Class Classical warfare articles
• Classical warfare task force articles

• Military history articles needing attention to referencing and citation
• Military history articles needing attention to coverage and accuracy
• Middle Eastern military history articles needing attention to referencing and citation
• Middle Eastern military history articles needing attention to coverage and accuracy
• Roman and Byzantine military history articles needing attention to referencing and citation
• Roman and Byzantine military history articles needing attention to coverage and accuracy
• Classical warfare articles needing attention to referencing and citation
• Classical warfare articles needing attention to coverage and accuracy