This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Battle of Artaxata is within the scope of WikiProject Armenia, an attempt to improve and better organize information in articles related or pertaining to Armenia and Armenians. If you would like to contribute or collaborate, you could edit the article attached to this page or visit the project page for further information.ArmeniaWikipedia:WikiProject ArmeniaTemplate:WikiProject ArmeniaArmenian articles
True, Artaxata was not taken by Lucullus, but the engagement was a costly tactical Roman victory. At least this is what most sources say.--KoberTalk19:30, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ք.ա. 66 թ. ամռանը Տիգրան Կրտսերի ուղեկցությամբ Պոմպեոսի հռոմեական բանակը ներխուժեց Հայաստան: Տիգրան Մեծի դիրքերը բավականին թուլացել էին՝ պարթևների թշնամական գործողությունների, որդու խռովության և հռոմեական բանակի Հայաստան ներխուժման պատճառով: Հաջողության հասնելու հույսերը փոքր էին, ուստի ավելի խոհեմ կլիներ Հայաստանին ձեռնտու զիջումների գնով հաշտվել նրա հետ և հենց Հռոմի օգնությամբ էլ պայքար մղել մյուս երկուսի դեմ: Հայաստանը կարող էր կորցնել իր անկախությունը, ուստի անհրաժեշտ էր գնալ զիջումների ոչ կենսական խնդիրներում, գլխավորը՝ անկախությունը, պահպանելու համար:
Պոմպեոսը Ք.ա. 66 թ. սեպտեմբերին մոտեցավ Արտաշատին և ճամբար դրեց քաղաքից ոչ հեռու: Անմիջապես սկսվեցին հայ-հռոմեական հաշտության բանակցությունները: Այն, ինչին ձգտում էր Հռոմը, ստանում էր առանց ռազմական գործողությունների և զոհերի: Տիգրան Կրտսերի փորձերը՝ խոչընդոտելու բանակցությունները, արդյունք չտվեցին: Ընդհակառակը, նա հայտնվեց «խաղից դուրս» վիճակում:
At first, there is one mistake in that article: Tigranes (Tigran) the Great is not the successor of Artavasdes (Artavazd) I. He is the successor of his father: Tigranes (Tigran) I. I have read this article but I don't find info about Roman victory in Artaxata battle. Please read this Mr./Mrs. Kansas Bear.--Հայկ Ափրիկյան (talk) 16:50, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt the veracity of your sources since none of them have page numbers and the majority of sources I have read, including Cambridge Ancient History, make no mention of a battle(ie. near Artaxata), that instead Lucullus' troops mutinied before reaching Artaxata. The Cambridge Ancient History, Volume 9, ed. by J. A. Crook, Andrew Lintott, Elizabeth Rawson, page 242,[2] --Kansas Bear (talk) 20:32, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
According to Plutarch(a battle near the river Arsania), "When Lucullus marched against this city, Tigranes could not suffer it quietly, but put himself at the head of his forces, and on the fourth day encamped over against the Romans, keeping the river Arsania between himself and them, which they must of necessity cross on their way to Artaxata. [5] Thereupon Lucullus sacrificed to the gods, in full assurance that the victory was already his, and then crossed the river with twelve cohorts in the van, and the rest disposed so as to prevent the enemy from closing in upon his flanks. For large bodies of horsemen and picked soldiers confronted him, and these were covered by Mardian mounted archers and Iberian lancers, on whom Tigranes relied beyond any other mercenaries, deeming them the most warlike. [6] However, they did not shine in action, but after a slight skirmish with the Roman cavalry, gave way before the advancing infantry, scattered to right and left in flight, and drew after them the cavalry in pursuit. On the dispersion of these troops, Tigranes rode out at the head of his cavalry, and when Lucullus saw their splendour and their numbers he was afraid. [7] He therefore recalled his cavalry from their pursuit of the flying enemy, and taking the lead of his troops in person, set upon the Atropateni, who were stationed opposite him with the magnates of the king's following, and before coming to close quarters, sent them off in panic flight. Of three kings who together confronted the Romans, Mithridates of Pontus seems to have fled most disgracefully, for he could not endure even their shouting. [8] The pursuit was long and lasted through the whole night, and the Romans were worn out, not only with killing their enemies, but also with taking prisoners and getting all sorts of booty. Livy says that in the former battle a greater number of the enemy, but in this more men of high station were slain and taken prisoners."[3]
I say you can't get more authoritative than the The Cambridge Ancient History. There was, indeed, no battle, since Lucullus' troops mutinied before they could engage Tigranes' forces.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 05:26, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It would appear that there was a battle, although most modern sources state Artaxata whereas Cambridge, Steel and primary sources place the battle near the river Arsanias. Seeing how Հայկ Ափրիկյան has not seen fit to respond to the sources I have provided, I will be reverting his "sources" adding the Cambridge and Steel sources. --Kansas Bear (talk) 21:01, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sallust, Patrick McGushin (1994). The histories, Volume 2 (illustrated, reprint ed.). Oxford University Press. p. 203. ISBN9780198721437. Does not state an Armenian victory. Yet user:Հայկ Ափրիկյան used it as a source to promote his opinion Artaxata was an Armenian victory.
Plutarch Lives. "However, they did not shine in action, but after a slight skirmish with the Roman cavalry, gave way before the advancing infantry, scattered to right and left in flight, and drew after them the cavalry in pursuit. On the dispersion of these troops, Tigranes rode out at the head of his cavalry, and when Lucullus saw their splendour and their numbers he was afraid. He therefore recalled his cavalry from their pursuit of the flying enemy, and taking the lead of his troops in person, set upon the Atropateni, who were stationed opposite him with the magnates of the king's following, and before coming to close quarters, sent them off in panic flight. Of three kings who together confronted the Romans, Mithridates of Pontus seems to have fled most disgracefully, for he could not endure even their shouting. The pursuit was long and lasted through the whole night, and the Romans were worn out, not only with killing their enemies, but also with taking prisoners and getting all sorts of booty. Livy says that in the former battle a greater number of the enemy, but in this more men of high station were slain and taken prisoners." Does not state an Armenian victory, either.
It seems as if the unclear results of the battle have made it subject to open interpretation by modern Armenian historians, who apparently are intent on portraying the mutiny as one of a long-term victory for Armenia. Thus, while the Romans scored a clear tactical victory, they were unable to press their advantage to unseat Tigran. It depends on how one views it, but while I think it may be safe to say that this was indeed a victorious battle for Rome, perhaps we can specify, if it not clear enough already, that it was unable to capitalize on this defeat. Just my two cents. --Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 16:42, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please pay attention to that Plutarch was a pro-Roman historian and I think we can't trust him for 100%, as if there's only one source, it can't be true indeed, for example, according to Plutarch, during the battle of Tigranocerta (69 BC, 6 of October) only 5 Romans were killed:
Plutarch Lives, 28.6. "The young man, however, did not venture to assume the diadem, but gave it to his most trusted slave for safe keeping. This slave happened to be captured, and was brought to Lucullus, and thus even the diadem of Tigranes became a part of the booty. It is said that more than a hundred thousand of the enemy's infantry perished, while of the cavalry only a few, all told, made their escape. Of the Romans, on the other hand, only a hundred were wounded, and only five killed."
How can it be that only 5 Romans were killed when "more than 100000 soldiers of Armenian army" was killed? I think it's a propaganda or a lie.
P.S.: Here is the translation of the sources:
Armenian army was divided into to parts: the cavalry was guided by Tigranes II the Great and the infantry was guided by Mithridates VI of Pontus. By Roman historian Appian, Roman army was between Armenian infantry and cavalry and one of them always was threating him. Roman legions tried to pass the river Arsanias and move to the capital Artaxata in September. But Armenian cavalry headed by Tigranes the Great quickly prevented Roman army near Arsanias. Two sides started the battle. Armenian cavalry turned to flight at first and then, when the military order of Roman army was broken, started the counterattack. Roman historian Dio Cassius wrote that Armenian cavaliers killed and wounded many soliders of Roman army with double arrow-points. After the battle of Arsanias the remains of Roman army turned to flight and ran away to Nisibis. — General editorial staff of Soviet Armenian Encyclopedia (1974). Soviet Armenian Encyclopedia, Volume 1. Yerevan: Soviet Armenian Encyclopedia Publishing house. p. 685. Retrieved 2 May 2015.
Not losing hope that Tigranes may ask for peace, Lucullus went out from the southern province of Armenia Corduene and left for Artaxat in spring of 68 BC. But Armenian army was eschewing from main battle and slowly retreating to Artaxata. During that time, Armenians were weakening Roman army with unexpected attacks. Atrophied Roman army arrived the bank of Arsanias in 22 of September. Soon Armenian army headed by Tigranes attacked them near Arsanias, in front of Armenian Cartagena (aka Artaxata - Հայկ Ափրիկյան). Roman army was completely defeated. — National Academy of Sciences of the Republic of Armenia (2013). History of Armenia, Volume 6. Yerevan: Manmar Publishing house. pp. 92–93. ISBN9789939621012. Retrieved 2 May 2015.
After the defeat in the battle of Tigranocerta, Tigranes the Great organized a nationwide resistance and defeated Roman army in the 22 of October, 68 BC, in the battle of Arsanias during Armeno-Roman war which started in spring of 69 BC. — Editorial staff of Armenian Big School Encyclopedia (2008). Big School Encyclopedia, Book 2. Yerevan: Armenian Encyclopedia SNCO. ISBN9785897000371. Retrieved 2 May 2015.
In spring of 68 BC Roman army passed Eastern (Armenian) Taurus and entered the lea of Arsanias. Lucullus wanted to enter province Ayrarat (Artaxata is in Ayrarat - Հ. Ա.), capture the capital Artaxata and win the war. Armenian army was divided into to parts: the cavalry was guided by Tigranes II the Great and the infantry was guided by Mithridates VI of Pontus. Armenian army was eschewing from open war and often was attacking Roman army. After three months Roman army tried to pass Arsanias but was defeated by Armenian cavalry. — Simonyan, Hrachya R., with redaction of (2012). History of Armenia(PDF). Yerevan: Yerevan State University Press. pp. 54–55. ISBN9785808416390. Retrieved 2 May 2015.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
In 66 BC Tigranes came forward to Lucullus (who went out from Nisibis to capture Artaxata), defeated Roman army near Arsanias and made them to escape. — Ulubabyan, Bagrat (1987). The chatbook, Volume 1(PDF). Yerevan: Arevik Publishing house. pp. 97–98. Retrieved 2 May 2015.
A new battle took place near the bank of Arsanias in 68 BC. This time a new army stood against Romans. Armenian army was more professional and trained. During the battle Romans must retreat and leave Armenian borders.
Dio Cassius wrote: "Since many, then, were getting wounded, of whom some died, and the others were in any case maimed, and since provisions at the same time were failing them, Lucullus retired from that place and marched against Nisibis." — National Academy of Sciences of the Republic of Armenia (2000). History of Armenia, Volume 5(PDF). Yerevan: Luys Publishing house. p. 49. ISBN9785545014903. Retrieved 2 May 2015.
P.S.II:Besides, Dio Cassius writes this:
In this engagement the opposing cavalry gave the Roman cavalry hard work, but none of the foe approached the infantry; indeed, whenever the foot-soldiers of Lucullus assisted the horse, the enemy would turn to flight. Far from suffering any injury, however, they kept shooting back at those pursuing them, killing some instantly and wounding great numbers. Now these wounds were dangerous and hard to heal; for they used double arrow-points and moreover poisoned them, so that the missiles, whether they stuck fast anywhere in the body or even if they were drawn out, would very quickly destroy it, since the second iron point, not being firmly attached, would be left in the wound. — Cassius, Dio (1914). Roman history, Volume 3, Book 36, Chapter 5 (Loeb Classical Library ed.). Harvard University Press. Retrieved 2 May 2015.
History of the East. In 6 volumes. V. 1. The East in antiquity, 357. It says, that Lucull was defeated in battle of Artaxata /Original/ История Востока. В 6 т. Т. 1. Восток в древности, 357 LexaneAlex (talk) 11:41, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean exactly, which one of that article contradicts this? Btw this is considered as reliable in ru wiki and in ru wiki the result of battle is mentioned as Armenian victory. My point is to make result as "Indecisive
•Roman victory sources
•Armenian victory sources " LexaneAlex (talk) 12:50, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:RS basically means reliable source. What other Wikis says is irrelevant. Also, not sure how you can consider this indecisive when the text clearly demonstrates that the Armenian forces lost, with Tigranes becoming a Roman vassal. --HistoryofIran (talk) 17:26, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Saying Tigranes became Roman vassal after that battle clearly shows that you don't know timeline of that period, also I give an reliable source that CLEARLY says Armenian victory /source: История Востока. В 6 т. Т. 1. Восток в древности/ An influence russian language source LexaneAlex (talk) 17:33, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Let's pretend that I was wrong on the vassal bit, why did Tigranes' army get beaten then? You're to yet to demonstrate that it is a reliable source. --HistoryofIran (talk) 17:36, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That article literally says that army if Tigranes WASN'T defeated in battle if Artaxata and so the retreat to Nisibis was result of gaurilla war and battle of Artaxata
About the article – main redactors of that are Rotislav Rybakov, Leonid Alayev and other famous historians LexaneAlex (talk) 19:06, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
From the page (Google Translate); "However, in 68 BC, when trying to take Artashat, Lucullus was defeated, the Armenians managed to push the Romans back to Mesopotamia and return Mithridates to Pontus." This isn't fully clear and doesn't necessarily mean that Lucullus lost the battle of Artaxata. Compare Spencer C. Tucker; "Advancing farther into northeastern Armenia, Lucullus again is victorious in battle at Artaxata in 68 BC. When his exhausted troops refuse to proceed any farther, Lucullus returns with them to the Euphrates Valley" - page 115 A Global Chronology of Conflict: From the Ancient World to the Modern Middle East [6 volumes: From the Ancient World to the Modern Middle East] --HistoryofIran (talk) 10:59, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
How is that not fully clear? It cleary says that Lucull was defeating trying to take Artaxata and it says that ARMENIAN PUSHED BACK Lucull to Mesopotamia, not just "Legioners rejected to go deeper to Armenia" so this means that THE FINAL result of BATTLE (battle isn't just fight) was retreat of Lucull LexaneAlex (talk) 12:05, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Read my comment again please. Also, just for the record, other sources say similiar;
"In 68, Lucullus continued his campaign against Tigranes, taking his forces north and winning another victory by the river Arsanias towards the end of the summer. But he failed, again, to capture Mithridates; and his troops’ discontent forced him to abandon the pursuit and return over the Taurus mountains again to the headwaters of the Tigris, where he captured and overwintered in the city of Nisibis." page 141, The End of the Roman Republic 146 to 44 BC: Conquest and Crisis, Edinburgh University Press, Catherine Steel
"The zone of operations is not defined by the sources until Lucullus moved deeper into northern Armenia, crossed the Arsanias, the southern tributary of the Euphrates, where he brushed the Armenian resistance aside in a considerable engagement, and marched across central Armenia towards Artaxata. The northern capital, set in north-eastern Armenia, beyond Mt Ararat in the upper Araxes valley, sheltered the king's family, barely rescued the previous year from Tigranocerta. But it was late in the season, and the Roman troops, hampered by autumnal storms, protested against continuing their advance, having now endured, apart from their military engagements, a march of some 1,500 kilometres "as the crow flies" from Cyzicus. Lucullus promptly turned south and marched across the breadth of Armenia through the Antitaurus, presumably by the Bitlis pass in the east, to the southern edge of the upper Tigris basin. There he invested Nisibis, a strongly fortified town with a famous double wall, on the Mesopotamian border, still held by the king's brother." - page 242, The Cambridge Ancient History IX: The Last Age of the Roman Republic
I think that we should put both theories, because most of Eastern sources consider it as Armenian victory, and most of Western sources – Roman LexaneAlex (talk) 13:14, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Finally, in his campaign against Tigranes, Lucullus had defeated the Armenian forces blocking the road to their capital at Artaxata (near modern Artashat), but bad weather and discontent in the ranks forced him to turn south to Mesopotamia" - page 139, Making Mesopotamia: Geography and Empire in a Romano-Iranian Borderland, Brill Publishers
"Artaxata, Battle of. Battle fought in 68 BC between the Roman general Lucullus and the combined forces of Mithridates (VI) Eupator of Pontus and Tiridates of Armenia. Lucullus' Roman army defeated the forces of Mithridates and Tiridates using aggressive tactics. However, Lucullus' eastward advance was stopped by the mutinity of his own men." - page 22, The Hutchinson Dictionary of Ancient and Medieval Warfare, Routledge --HistoryofIran (talk) 13:20, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Foiled in this, Lucullus now decided on a midsummer (68 B.C.) offensive deep into Armenia, to crush his «exhausted antagonists» Mithridates and Tigranes who, anticipating such a move, had assembled another large army with a powerful cavalry force to harass his foragers. He brought them to battle north of Lake Van, somewhere on the upper Arsanias, an eastern tributary of the Euphrates, and put their army to flight (PLUT., Luc., 31, 5). Tigranes at once retreated to his capital Artaxata. «Elated and emboldened», Lucullus wanted to pursue him; but winter comes early in those parts. After marching some days through snow-clad mountains in bitter weather, the soldiers refused to go on, despite all his entreaties (Luc., 32, 3), and he was forced to return to Mesopotamia and winter at Nisibis, after taking the city by storm." --Lucullus Daemoniac, Graham J. Wylie, "L'Antiquité Classique", T. 63 (1994), page 117. --Kansas Bear (talk) 02:26, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"In 68, L. Licinius Lucullus was commanding Roman armies in the east and had already scored numerous victories over Mithridates VI of Pontus and his son-in-law/ally King Tigranes of Armenia. 111 However, he was unable to capture either king and bring the war to a successful conclusion. As the war dragged on, opposition to his extended command increased in Rome and in camp. Asia and Cilicia were removed from his control. Lucullus realized that his time was running out and that he needed to force Tigranes and Mithridates into a decisive battle. He decided to lead his army against the two kings in mid-summer 68. Although he won another victory over Tigranes and Mithridates at the Arsanias River, neither king was captured. Both fled further east to Artaxata. Lucullus followed, but the march became arduous, and supplies began to run out. Winter set in much earlier and much more severely than expected. According to Plutarch’s description, snow, sleet, and constant dampness plagued Lucullus’ men., "Freedom of Speech and the Roman Republican Army", Stefan G. Chrissanthos, Free Speech in Classical Antiquity, page 362. --Kansas Bear (talk) 02:56, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
