Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Battles of Barbalissos and Edessa
#1
According to the Sassanids (and Wikipedia), these are battles in which the Sassanid Emperor Shapur ‘destroyed’ two Roman armies that each totalled 70,000 men – so basically two Carrhae level destructions that otherwise get little coverage in Roman records (other than the capture of Valerian and even there the accounts are very sketchy and contradictory).

So any thoughts on which of these two great powers and egos of the ancient world is bending or omitting the truth the most?

PS - I ran a search to see if these have been discussed in another thread but very little came up - but please point me in the right direction is there is one.

Thanks,

Christian
Reply
#2
Apparently we discussed this already 8 years ago.. Winkhere.
Jona Lendering also discussed it extensively here: http://www.livius.org/nl/oorlogsmist.html (in Dutch, use Google translate)

I think we can safely say that in this case the Romans were 'less enthusiastic' to report what occurred. The numbers may be accurate or not (the captives helped build a city for the victors, so they must have been quite a few), and maybe this was the number of the defeated army (including the ubiquitous federates and auxilia). But Shapur did raid Syria and conquered quite a number of cities, something he could not have done with a numerous Roman army still operating nearby. In this case, the Persians were probably more accurate.
Robert Vermaat
MODERATOR
FECTIO Late Romans
THE CAUSE OF WAR MUST BE JUST
(Maurikios-Strategikon, book VIII.2: Maxim 12)
Reply
#3
Quote:I think we can safely say that in this case the Romans were 'less enthusiastic' to report what occurred.

From what I've read e.g. in The Roman Eastern Frontier and the Persian Wars Barbalissos wasn't reported at all. The Naqs-i-Rustam/Bishapur account "finds no echo in Roman sources." At least one ancient writer mentioned Valerian being beaten in battle (at Edessa) but the apparent, official line was that he was taken by treachery.

Quote:The numbers may be accurate or not

I'd assume Barbalisssos involved the virtual eradication of Rome's eastern army. Extant Roman forces offered at least some resistance after Edessa.

Quote:(the captives helped build a city for the victors,

Dunno about a city but they did build a bridge and monuments including a big statue of Shapur.

Quote:But Shapur did raid Syria and conquered quite a number of cities, something he could not have done with a numerous Roman army still operating nearby.

Sure, that's good confirmation of their victory claims. They did get a little careless after Edessa though; Callistus and Odenathus counterattacked.

Quote: In this case, the Persians were probably more accurate.

I'd say undoubtedly. The Roman version is either lacking or propaganda.
Reply
#4
To me the Persian numbers seem quite exaggerated. Of course the Romans downplayed the defeat of Valerian (at least some of them did). There surely were Persian incursions after the battle of Edessa. Now according to the Romans Odaenathus gathered some of the Roman troops in the area, the Persians were attacked by a certain Callistus/Ballista as well.

In the meantime Macrianus (a former officer in Valerian's army) had time to lead 30.000 troops (according to the HA) in a revolt against Gallienus. To me this sounds like there was quite some confusion after Valerian was captured, on the other hand the loss in the battle itself can't have been all that devastating as there were still enough troops left to drive back the Persians, start a civil war with a substantial force and the troops in Egypt don't seem to have participated at all.
Reply
#5
Quote:To me the Persian numbers seem quite exaggerated. Of course the Romans downplayed the defeat of Valerian (at least some of them did).

Some omitted mention of it and said Valerian was the victim of mutiny or treachery--which I don't buy.

Quote:There surely were Persian incursions after the battle of Edessa. Now according to the Romans Odaenathus gathered some of the Roman troops in the area, the Persians were attacked by a certain Callistus/Ballista as well.

Some Roman troops evidently didn't fight at Edessa or may have extricated themselves. I don't think Callistus had a large force though--IIRC a force transported by ship to an area of Asia Minor under assault. The problem for the Persians was that by then they were spread out plundering, hence vulnerable.

Quote:In the meantime Macrianus (a former officer in Valerian's army) had time to lead 30.000 troops (according to the HA) in a revolt against Gallienus.

It does seem like Barbalissos was the worse disaster in terms of losses. There was no immediately subsequent resistance by Roman units, let alone something like Macrianus's force. Not sure btw if the HA is reliable. If Macrianus had 30,000 troops it's a bit surprising he lost at Serdica in 261. By then the central government was in pretty bad shape. He may originally have been in charge of rear echelon, support troops--the imperial anona or some such--as opposed to good combat forces.


Quote:To me this sounds like there was quite some confusion after Valerian was captured, on the other hand the loss in the battle itself can't have been all that devastating

There sure were enough prisoners of war to build some impressive things--not just reliefs and a big statue of Sapor but a nice bridge...

Quote: as there were still enough troops left to drive back the Persians,

Bit of an exaggeration. The Callistus counterattack frightened Shapur into pulling back, probably because his forces were so attenuated. Odenathus may have got in a punch too but Odenathus didn't do much until 262 CE or after Shapur's army had dispersed.
Reply
#6
Quote:According to the Sassanids (and Wikipedia), these are battles in which the Sassanid Emperor Shapur ‘destroyed’ two Roman armies that each totalled 70,000 men

The Res Gestae Divi Saporis claims the Persians annihilated a 60,000 man Roman force at Barbalissos. A Roman army of 70,000 is mentioned at Edessa but here the RGDS does not in fact claim to have wiped it out (just captured Valerian and others). That's credible considering the Persians faced Roman resistance soon after Edessa but not right after Barbalissos.

Quote:so basically two Carrhae level destructions

Barbalissos seems worse--60,000 lost vs 20,000 dead and 10,000 captured at Carrhae. Edessa was probably comparable.
Reply


Forum Jump: