01-27-2004, 12:48 PM
Yes I agree the romans, as were the centralized Sassanian rulers, quite interested in propaganda. However there is no real evidence that a 70 thousand roman army was "destroyed". As I see it the problem is with the word "destroyed", a word used very often by roman propaganda too. I don't question the notion of a roman defeat. Shapur was good, very good! But a real roman disaster of such proportions would be evident from other evidence, even if it were cancelled from the books by some censor. I conclude that the Sassanian sources, at least with what concerns the description of their success against the romans in this particular instance, are not credible.<br>
<br>
By the way we knew about Shapur's great victories by "roman" sources even before the findings of the Sassanian sulptures of the capture of Valerian. The roman sources are basically useful to a historian; i.e. one can do a certain amount of cross-referencing to attribute some degree of credibility to a documented episode. A documented episode that stands in relative isolation is assigned a relatively small level of credibility.<br>
<br>
<br>
<p></p><i></i>
<br>
By the way we knew about Shapur's great victories by "roman" sources even before the findings of the Sassanian sulptures of the capture of Valerian. The roman sources are basically useful to a historian; i.e. one can do a certain amount of cross-referencing to attribute some degree of credibility to a documented episode. A documented episode that stands in relative isolation is assigned a relatively small level of credibility.<br>
<br>
<br>
<p></p><i></i>
Jeffery Wyss
"Si vos es non secui of solutio tunc vos es secui of preciptate."
"Si vos es non secui of solutio tunc vos es secui of preciptate."
