Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of the Tigris

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. --Tone 11:31, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of the Tigris

[edit]
Battle of the Tigris (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Basically there is no such battle, thus issues of notability come in here. There is one mention of a battle in 521 here [1] and there is at least one battle with that name a couple of thousand years later, but this is WP:OR. The article's creator has a history of creating articles on non-existent battles. Doug Weller (talk) 10:08, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. As well as being blatant OR, this article is also a POV fork from Battle of Opis, where Ariobarza has repeatedly been advised by Akhilleus, Alvestrand, Dougweller and I to stop adding this original research. Ariobarza believes that the Persian king Cyrus the Great fought a battle with the Babylonians at the Tigris river in February 539 BC. No reliable source makes this claim. You will not find any history of ancient Babylonia or Persia that talks of a "Battle of the Tigris" in 539 BC. (There was a "Battle of the Tigris" involving the Ottoman Turks in 1733 but that's not the same one, obviously.) Instead, Ariobarza is relying on his personal interpretation of an ancient Babylonian chronicle (see discussion at Talk:Battle of Opis#Another set of translations). See also the comments by Alvestrand [2], Dougweller [3] and Akhilleus [4] pointing out the original research and why it can't be included. It's unfortunate that Ariobarza has ignored all of us and decided to create this OR-based POV fork instead. -- ChrisO (talk) 10:23, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Unless you people have an agenda, please explain why your in such a hurry to delete such a puny article, while other articles with NO text have been left alone for almost a year! I am updating the article everyday, but I guess it hasen't clicked up there you guys's heads. You people lack humanity and common sense, plus, are (for some reason) impatient. Going to be in denial until the bitter end I see, okay then...--Ariobarza (talk) 17:03, 27 October 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk[reply]
    • Comment Point me towards the articles with no text and I'll see what I can do with them. Meanwhile, please don't use this as an opportunity to insult other editors. I've been trying my best to help you avoid such problems for many months now. Doug Weller (talk) 17:37, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. What ChrisO said: there are no reliable sources that say a "Battle of the Tigris" occurred at this time between the Persians and Babylonians. Shall I change my username to "impatient Bratz doll" now? --Akhilleus (talk) 19:53, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I got an idea, why don't you guys just delete the title! Your changing the subject, the subject is that, does this battle exist, NOT whether or not the title (currently searching) exists, there are lots of battles with no titles, the title is based on the sources it says direct qoute, On the (river) Tigris, furthermore, that corresponds to were Cyrus was invading from, Herodotus says he was delayed/ building stuff, and probable scrimish (attack/ battle) at the Gyndes river (todays Diyalas). Dougweller had let me use Siege of Pasargadae Hill for an untitled battle, BECAUSE the sources said it was a hill in Pasargadae that was besieged, so for certain extreme circumstances its okay to make titles, but the battle must and will and is under being sourced. I know your dying to taste the smell of deletion, but that must waist, so, come again.--Ariobarza (talk) 20:09, 27 October 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk[reply]
But that battle took place in 521. It's not the battle the argument is about. And your 'corresponds' is, once again, OR. Your direct quote has nothing to do with the article, as I think I've demonstrated on the article's talk page. What I don't understand is how you can write an article about a battle without starting with a firm, unambiguous, reliable, verifiable source. Doug Weller (talk) 20:24, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is a perfect demonstration of what's wrong with Ariobarza's "research". Read the source that he links above; it says: "521: Darius I ... in December, battle on the Tigris and capture of Babylon". In other words, a different ruler and a different battle, 18 years after the one Ariobarza is claiming. He simply hasn't bothered to read the source properly; a moment's care would have shown that it's nothing to do with the supposed battle of 539 BC. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:58, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The concerns have been brought up on the article's talk page, and Ariobarza has been unable to produce sources that says there was a "Battle of the Tigris" at this time. No sources, no article. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:35, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There's no possibility that it can "come together" because the topic is entirely fictitious and undocumented. You might just as well ask for sources that to confirm that "George W. Bush is a reptilian humanoid". -- ChrisO (talk) 09:15, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete: since when did we allow people to post apparently invented information here, and then give them weeks to come up with even one half-decent source that actually mentions the event at all, let alone any sources that mention it under this name or that give any details on what supposedly happened. At the risk of seeming rude, the editor who created this page appears to have a history of inventing his own narrative of historical events and creating pages to match it. And then becoming abusive when challenged on his lack of sources. I don't see what this adds to the project - WP is meant to be a (hopefully) reliable reference encyclopedia that collates known and verifiable information, not a sandbox for aspiring amateur historians or historical novelists to either promote or road test their own ideas. --Nickhh (talk) 08:00, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Erm, that's just a version of the WP article on Cyrus, hosted on another site. What's the betting that Ariobarza added that info a while back? I mean come on, if this doesn't tell you where we are with this one I guess nothing will. In addition this highlights the problems with having poor info here - it gets repeated and circulated elsewhere. And eventually is the sort of thing that makes WP a laughing stock from time to time. Even if proper sources are out there somewhere (which seems unlikely), this whole thing is being done back to front - editors here shouldn't just dump stuff here which appears to come off the top of their heads, and then scrabble around googling for something to vaguely back it up. There's way too much of that here as it is. Usually it's a POV problem, but here it's about basic historical accuracy. --Nickhh (talk) 15:34, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong commentI am really get tired of your (some users) bogus statements about my history. I NEVER made up a battle article, I made two articles TITLEs, not the battle itself (except the Siege of Ecbatana, which some now agree it might have been a raid/ storm not a siege). Secondly, when joining Wikipedia I knew disputes like this would arise, because most historians have neglected to provide a conclusive book on Persian history (and this is fact when compared to how many Egyptian, Greek, Roman books have been published). One must do A LOT of research just to find one of their battles, because the sources for them are barely covered by historians, and when they are, they are vague. But even though the Feb battle (a nickname of Battle of the Tigris which I never said was exactly in February) it has no title (as the battle of Opis did not have a title, historians would later call it Battle of Opis). IT Does not mean the battle has no right to exist in Wikipedia. For example, please check out Siege of Eion, I could only find a couple sources on the siege (its possibly more scant that the Battle of Tigris), which is part of the Greco-Persian Wars. If you do not know already, this is part of a bigger issue (as ChrisO says), as one must analyze why Persian nationalists even exists. My theory is that historians have been very Greco-Roman centric, which has led Iranians/ Persians to reavaluate their history, and when they did, they became mad when they found out historians were neglecting it. This is my theory, your welcomed to make yours, when coming here I suggest any to user, should go to the Opis talk page and read further, as evidence for the battle is there, I suggest you do that before coming here and saying ill informed things.--Ariobarza (talk) 16:52, 28 October 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk[reply]
The evidence at the Opis talk page is exactly the same as the evidence presented here and at the Tigris talk page: Attempts at synthesis from fragmentary ancient sources, and never giving a quote directly from a verifiable published source that supports the assertions. --Alvestrand (talk) 17:17, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. The issue is quite simple here - it's about having reliable sources for information, per policies and guidelines on WP:RS, WP:OR and WP:NOTABILITY. You can complain all you like about bias in Western analysis of and discourse on the classical world (an argument I'm actually somewhat sympathetic to as it happens); there are also of course going to be incidents and battles throughout history that may well have happened, but which for whatever reason have gone unrecorded in any detail or which can only be found referenced inconclusively in primary sources. Regardless, it's not up to you or anyone else on WP to embark on some sort of mission to supposedly put that all right, relying simply on what you - as one individual among many - happen to believe is the case. If a topic or incident isn't covered in mainstream reliable sources, it generally shouldn't have a page here. --Nickhh (talk) 17:44, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And that of course is a prime example of original research by synthesis - "If the sources cited do not explicitly reach the same conclusion ... then the editor is engaged in original research." This really is a textbook case. Unfortunately Ariobarza simply doesn't seem to accept the fact that OR is prohibited. It's not just that he doesn't understand it, as it's been explained to him often enough - he simply rejects it. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:55, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • HISTORY OF THIS MONTHS PAST EVENTSHypocracy at its best! This occurs when sources are listed (by ChrisO and other users on this page) for Battle of Opis that (historians) are NOT sure whether Cyrus slaughtered the Akkadians or the Akkadian army, or if there was even a slaughter at all. Then ChrisO wanted to push a POV that Cyrus did some sort of slaughtering, which is (original research by synthesis), then from the others users pressure, he backs off. THEN he says Ariobarza can not do what he did, BEFORE Ariobarza has even attempted to update the Battle of the Tigris. Finally, (after a Opis talk page dispute, that ChrisO had enough of, and later ignored Ariobarza's solutions) ChrisO convinces others to delete the Battle of the Tigris. The end. Battle of Opis contains POV DISPUTES, OR, LACK OF VERIFIABLE TEXT, which is different from what the sources book actually says, and many other problems, why don't you guys go after that! Currently I am gathering THE sources for this battle on my talk page, so do not rush this.--Ariobarza (talk) 19:53, 28 October 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk[reply]
  • Delete. As far as I know, there may well have been such a battle. However, the sources given in the article seem to be all or almost all primary sources. Original research is good, but Wikipedia isn't the place for it. You can write up an article on the battle or possible battle and have it published in a peer-reviewed scholarly journal, and then maybe a Wikipedia article can be written about it, citing the journal article. It's not necessary for the battle to have certainly existed or to be certainly fictional in order to have a Wikipedia article, but there must be sufficient secondary sources. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 21:16, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • COMMENTThe problem is that there are secondary sources, that this did happen, some users just dont understand what IMPATIENT means, you'l all going to regret it, I can't say it more simply. And as far as Original research is concerned, 99% of users forget to read the actual article to the end, which says, There is a thin line between NEW CLASSIFICATION and original research, which means if I make, through my original [research] (NOTICE, research is what we do on Wikipedia) a discovery, then it is okay, IF it is backed by sources, click on it, it is the original article, not the article titled, "No original reaserch". Period.--Ariobarza (talk) 21:20, 28 October 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk[reply]
The page you're linking to is not the policy of course, which is what is relevant here. And you are so very wrong about the idea that WP editors should be looking to make "discoveries" of any sort. Quite apart from the unlikely prospect of a single WP editor suddenly, while seated at their PC/Mac and trawling through Google returns, coming across some radical and significant discovery that has eluded professional academic scholarship for decades, were you to have done so, it would still - as has been consistently pointed out - constitute original research and/or synthesis. And finally the impatience is all yours - you're the one who's rushed to create an unsourced and probably junk article without actually being aware of any sources that would back up the article or its contents. If you really wish to contribute here by making material up based on a hunch or a minor fragment of information, and only then Googling for any shred of evidence to support it in any substantive way days later, please do it in your sandbox. --Nickhh (talk) 22:26, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • CommentHow many times did I say Olmstead said Nabonidus was defeated on the Tigris in February-March, then a few lines later he say in October then Cyrus defeated him in Opis. It is therefore not a made up battle. And the users on this page are being fooled by ChrisO. PLEASE go to the Opis talk page I have listed most of the sources there, AND REMEMBER TO READ THE MESSAGES TO THE END. I am yelling this time, because I can't take it anymore. Thanks. And I am finding sources, so please do not comment here, it is waisting the time of my life, which will end the deletion of this article. I can't hold off two armies at once.--Ariobarza (talk) 23:19, 28 October 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk[reply]
How many times have you been asked to cite the specific page of the specific book by Olmstead that says that? --Alvestrand (talk) 07:16, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Original research. --Folantin (talk) 09:35, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I disagree that the name of the article is problematic, as many of the articles on Wikipedia about events current and historical have names cobbled together from consensus among editors rather than names attributed to specific sources. However, after reading the article, the article talk page, Battle of Opis and Talk:Battle of Opis, this appears to be a rather blatant POV fork full of original research. When consensus doesn't favor your beliefs, you don't create a new article. Ideally you research and come back with excellent sources to back up your position. Unfortunately, this appears unlikely to happen as the new article and previous assertions seem to be mired in original research and synthesis and personal interpretations of what sources already exist. AniMate 11:48, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If there are secondary sources, provide in-line citations of them. These will be built on original sources, and will cite them precisely. Those should be cited too, again precisely. Nevertheless, this article seems to be a much less good duplicate of Battle of Opis - i.e. a poor article about precisely the same battle. If so, this article is obviously the one to delete. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:56, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, the Battle of Opis was a completely separate and well-documented event which took place at Opis in northern Mesopotamia in September/October 539. Ariobarza is claiming that there was another, different battle near Uruk in southern Mesopotamia in February 539. But as already noted, there are no sources that say that. It's not a question of this being "a poor article about precisely the same battle" - it's a poor article about a different battle which no source says happened. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:59, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]


  • Small comment Before anyone reads the below, just know it is from the very first messages about this dispute, which in most cases NO ONE even bothered to read (from now before interfering in a dispute READ ALL THE MESSAGES TO GET A CLEAR UNDERSTANDING BEFORE SAYING nonesense) and just accepted a misconception face first, please do not ride off the bottom evidence as my analyzations, or wishfull thinking/original research, which I suggest ignoring evidence is much worse than all of the above. Now, before looking down, remember to read this whole message as carefully as you can, thanks;

Firstly, I think (Kuhrt and Smith which have the MOST outdated tranlsations, as they are also coincidently the ones who mention the Sea Coutry fighting) are mixing were each translation is coming from, please read below, and do not forget there is a seperate (which I will show near the end) Chronicle which Nabonidus defeats the Sea Country after a short invasion, so it has nothing to do with Cyrus. And the below is from Livius.org which gets its sources from translations that are not disputed, except the February battle that some think is disputed.

[Eleventh year (545/544): The king stayed in Temâ; the crown prince, his officials and his army were in Akkad. The king did not come to Babylon for the ceremonies of the month of Nisannu; Nabû did not come to Babylon, Bêl did not go out of Esagila in procession, the festival of the New Year was omitted. But the offerings within the temples Esagila and Ezida for the gods of Babylon and Borsippa were given according to the complete ritual.]

[large lacuna, containing years #12, #13, #14, #15]

[... Tigris. In the month of Addaru (February) the image of Ištar of Uruk [lacuna] The army of the Persians made an attack.]

(Note, the line above can only belong to year #16 which is 540-539 BC, because it comes after lacuna year #15 which is 541 BC, common sense. And this is what Olmstead says, and probably others that would now agree with him and do (because based on his writings, his students updated the book and finished it for him (because Olmstead died) and his translation of the text is from 1960 which places it right before Grayson's, and all the other translations after Grayson say 'Persia made an attack killed or defeated they did', this is what he says in his book, p. 49, line 20+;)

Heading of the page reads; FOUNDER CYRUS: "Conquest of Babylonia"

"Before the snows of the winter of 540-539 could fill the passes, he (Cyrus) was on the border. Nabu-naid brought the gods of Eshnunak, Zamban, Me Turnu, and Der to the capital before their capture. He suffered a defeat on the Tigris, but the only defense he could think of was to bring to his aid Ishtar of Uruk in March. Nabu-naid might try to explain the deportation as protection of the capital against the foreigner; the citizens complained loudly of temples abandoned by their divinities and lying in ruins."

(Again, this line comes from Olmstead book, and the lacuna that some claim are large, are only a few words, then in Olmsteads translation it says Ba defeated after the army of the Persians made an attack. Also, more evidence a of massive support for Cyrus in the Babylon (I can say Babylon and not Babylonia because I can differenciate between city and state), because he brought the statues of the Gods back to their cities, which gained him nearly all the support in Babylon, after he had defeated Nabonidus in Opis. But the inscriptions way above all happened before the Battle of Opis because someone? (Cyr..) had defeated the Babylonian army in February, and in March Nabonidus desired divine help from Ishtar of Uruk, this line of divine help comes from Olmstead and Rawlinson and others, please DO NOT forget to click on the external links here and then accuse me of not putting more sources. And then more bad news, a year later (As both Herodotus and Xenophon [Xenophon too talks of other minor battles in Babylon between Cyrus and Nabonidus BEFORE Cyrus got to Babylon itself] agree that Cyrus was diverting and building canals around the Tigris for about a year, so Cyrus was delayed at the Tigris for about a year. Then to make things worse, about six months later in the middle of 539 BC, the Sea Country made a short invasion (Probably from Oman as some historians speculate.)

[Seventeenth year (539/538); Nabû went from Borsippa for the procession of Bêl [lacuna] The king entered the temple of Eturkalamma; in the temple he [lacuna]. The Sea Country made a short invasion. Bêl went out in procession. They performed the festival of the New Year according to the complete ritual [4 April]. In the month of [Âbu?] Lugal-Marada and the other gods of the town Marad, Zabada and the other gods of Kish, the goddess Ninlil and the other gods of Hursagkalama visited Babylon. Till the end of the month Ulûlu all the gods of Akkad -those from above and those from below- entered Babylon. The gods of Borsippa, Cutha, and Sippar did not enter. In the month of Tašrîtu, when Cyrus attacked the army of Akkad in Opis [i.e., Baghdad] on the Tigris, the inhabitants of Akkad revolted, but he [Cyrus or Nabonidus?] massacred the confused inhabitants.]

(Note firstly, NOW in this inscription we see that the words that I bolden which is about the Sea Country PROVES that the February event and the Sea Country invasion are almost a YEAR apart, so who invaded Babylon in 540 BC? Note again, now they are refering to the Persian army as Cyrus's army, because of course Cyrus made himself famous in February, and as most historians and I and probably you know (even the small map shows it from the main page of Opis), Cyrus began his march from Ecbatana, which according to the distance, give or take a month Cyrus began his march in January of the year before?, and ended his conquest of Babylonia October (not Babylon [city]) you keep mixing them up. Anyways January-October was the how long the whole thing took, while Cyrus planning took place 5 months before the actual march as said by Olmstead, Oppenheim, and even Rawlinson, which have other crucial information that later historians did not want to go into the translation, which then makes the total time of the from invasion to conquest, about 9-19 or about 14 months to be exact, 9+19= 28/2= 14, or again according to Olmstead before winter+9 months= 14 months.)

Conclusion;

In all its entirety, Nabonidus, (most) of the translations of the historians, ~Herodotus, and Xenophon all AGREE that there was an earlier battle than just in Opis, and it is further more corraberatated by cuneiform evidence. And I will and know, and have more books to cite by more historians who actually mention the February battle, and the Chronicle I promised to put here is too long, just go on the site and look for it, under "Sea Country" Nabonidus has an entirely different account about them. Secondly, you may ask well how come I know all this other info, well I do part time reseach because this subject is my especiality, and I am interested in studying it, which this whole time has given me more incite, so please do not say the lacuna (which is actually small), mAy say a fishing boat from sea land attacked Ishtar then Uruk killed Persia fought, DO NOT SAY such blashemy!, it is just laughable, and it makes me cry at this ridiculus rendering. To say the least its even a wrong original research, think of your rendering of the lacuna as INDIRECT OR, then I get accused of OR! I know this is a lot of info to review but just look at it step by step, then make a good long counter arguement, not one line criticisms. This is Olmsteads translation;

Here just shows you that 4 of the 6 translations agree with my assessment, plus now I FOUND that Grayson says it was likely Parsu, WHICH now means 5 or the 6 translations AGREE with my proposal to make a article for this battle;

Date Translator Text Source
1925 Smith "... fought. The river Tigris ... In Adar Ishtar of Erech ... of the sea-land(?) ..." Babylonian Historical Texts
1950 Oppenheim "... Tigris. In the month of Addaru the image of Ištar of Uruk [lacuna] The army of the Persians made an attack..." Ancient Near Eastern Texts
1960 Olmstead "B[...] was defeated. On the Tigris. In the month of Addaru the (image of the) Ishtar of Uruk ... [the ...] [after] the army of the Persians made an attack..." The History of the Persian Empire
1975 Grayson "... Tigris. [In the month of] Addaru the (image of the) Ishtar of Uruk ...the ... [the ...]s of the Sea Country ... [arm]y [made an] at[tack] ..." Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles
2004 Glassner "[...] was killed. The Tig[ris ... (?). In the month of] Adar (?) Ištar of Uruk [...] the [troops] of Per[sia... the troop]s[...]." Mesopotamian Chronicles
2007 Kuhrt "[...] killed(?)/defeated(?). The river ... [...] Ishtar of Uruk [...] of Per[sia (?) ...]" The Persian Empire: A Corpus of Sources of the Achaemenid Period

Notice the [B WAS DEFEATED](No other country in and around the area had Ba in it, the only possiblity is that is was Ba-bylon it is an obscured word, BUT a B can be made of it, maybe the "Ba'bylonian' 'army' 'of' 'borders' was defeated" which is a possiblity (I say possiblity but I am not drawing any conclusions from it, because Olmstead and others already say it was Babylon), NOW the rest of the translation (with some fill ups that have marks that I have added BUT YOU COULD DISMISS THIS SENTENCE BECAUSE I AM SAYING OF HOW IT MIGHT HAVE POSSIBLY READ, WHICH IS OF COURSE ORIGINAL RESEARCH SO YOU ARE WELCOMED TO IGNORE THE NEXT SENTENCE, BUT IS STILL DOES NOT CHANGE THE facts that I will state under the sources, and Olmstead plainy states it happened, though you could ignore the below, its made from what Olmstead says, in March Nabonidus took the gods, Olmstead places the taking of the gods right AFTER the battle in February which is Addaru, so when I say February it is not original research as it even appears on the tablet ITSELF.)... "On the Tigris. In the month of Adarru the (image of the ) Ishtar of Uruk 'gets' 'taken' 'by' the 'mighty' 'king' 'Nabû' [after] the army of the Persians made an attack."

B was defeated/Someone was killed(according to other translations), after the Persians made an attack.

You see the Babylonians are talking like Yoda (when translating a obscured inscription, so this is just a joke, not OR, though the latter is true), backwards basically, they are saying the outcome of Persia's attack on the Tigris river in February.

The only question is who won the battle? The Babylonians, or the Persians, later Olmstead and Nabonidus inscription says Nabonidus evacuated all the Gods to somewhere else. So why would Nabonidus retreat from Cyrus? Unless of course he was defeated by Cyrus.

Sources;

  • As already cited, Olmsteads translation and text.
  • Check out ~Herodotus' and Xenophons' description of the Babylonian invasion.
  • The overall belief of MOST (who dared talked about this issue) historians, which my arguement is based on.
  • Rawlinsons outdated, but still uncontested and amazingly reliable book, which on page 68 says Cyrus restarted his march in spring, which is around Febraury to March, after being delayed at the Tigris for almost a year. And he says because he was making canals, and possibly there was a first battle between Cyrus and Nabonidus, all before the second battle at Opis. Here is the link, 1.

More sources, and more on the way;...

  • [10] HERE Grayson's takes back his own translation of SEA LAND, and says that he was wrong, and it should be Persia, now 5 of 6 tranlsatios agree with me, that I THINK AN ARTICLE SHOULD EXIST FOR A BATTLE THAT HAS EXISTED.
  • Book with Page 77 states seventh day of Adar[11]

Conclusion; What is said above is what Rawlinson implies, Oppenheim suggests, and Olmstead actually says, and the other newer Translations even by the dreaded Grayson mentions Persian troops on the Tigris. What do you, or one would suppose Persian troops were doing in February 540-539 BC on the Tigris? Singing "Ring Around the Rosey?" Godspeed to all mankind!(THIS MESSAGE is from the Battle of Opis talk page which none of you bothered to even look at) thanks.--Ariobarza (talk) 06:26, 30 October 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk[reply]

1) In the Behistun inscription, Darius appears to refer to such a battle in 521 BC against a rebellion in Babylon.[12]
2) Battle of the Tigris on June 26th, 363 AD, between the Romans led by Julian and the Sassanids. (Ref: The Seventh Great Oriental Monarchy, By George Rawlinson, Ch. X, p.191-223)
3) Battle of the Tigris in 1457 AD won by Uzun Hasan, which refers to the final chapter in the civil war after Qara Uthman death who was the founder of the Aq Quyunlu principality. (Ref: Review by Ann K.S. Lambton, Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London, Vol.41, No.1, pp.167-169, 1978.)
4) Battle of the Tigris on July 19, 1733 AD, between Ottomans and Persians. This second one is of course has been mentioned by other editors here. (Ref: E.J. Brill's First Encyclopaedia of Islam, 1913-1936 By Martijn Theodoor Houtsma, M. Th. Houtsma, p.812).Heja Helweda (talk) 22:52, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Battle_of_the_Tigris&oldid=1142653449"