Talk:Siege of Amida (502–503)

Comments

• What is meant by they were not supported by military troops? When I first read this, I thought "what kind of troops were there then".
  •  Done rewrote to make it more explicit
  • Sources suggests either there were a few soldiers (i.e., military was their main profession) or none meaning that the defenders were local militia or the citizens themselves (or both). Either interpretation suggests that the bulk of the defenders were the people of the city and not supported by emperor's troops.
  • Geoffrey Greatrex, Samuel N. C. Lieu (2002) The Roman Eastern Frontier and the Persian Wars AD 363-628 Pt. 2 p. 63 The siege of Amida, testament to Kavadh’s continuing appetite for plunder, proved to be a far more difficult enterprise than he expected; the defenders, although unsupported by troops, repelled his assaults for three months before they were finally beaten. (emphasis added)
  • Elton, Hugh (2018). The Roman Empire in Late Antiquity: A Political and Military History p. 326 In 502, there were few Roman troops in the city, which had to be defended by its population, including many of the local monks. (emphasis added)
• Does they repelled the Sasanian assaults for three months mean Sasanians attacked once, got repelled and stayed away for three months or did you mean they were repelling the Sasanian assaults for three months i.e. the attacks were ongoing for 3 months?
  •  Done rewrote, the latter, unfortunately we do not have a day by day account.
  • Geoffrey Greatrex (2002) p. 63–64 (translation of the primary source) When Kavadh and his army had been conquered 'in the various assaults which they had made upon the city, and many of his soldiers had died, his power gave way and (so) he asked that a small gift of silver should be given to him and he would withdraw from the city (emphasis added)
• Did Kavadh, who got distressed as winter set in get distressed because of the insults or the onset of winter?
  • My understanding was primarily due to the winter, because it would be a greater humiliation if he was defeated and insulted.
  • The primary source links to challenges that winter brings to a siege and in particularly the Persians
  • Geoffrey Greatrex (2002) p. 63–64 (translation from primary) (He felt) indignation and regret, because the winter came upon him in its severity, and because the Persians, being clad in their loose garments, appeared inefficient; and their bows were greatly relaxed by the moisture of the air; 5 and their battering-rams did not hurt the wall or make any breaches in it, for (the defenders) were tying bundles of rushes from the beds with chains, and receiving upon them the force of the battering-rams, and preventing them from breaching the wall. ... And (so) the king withdrew with shame and grief, since he was more and more mocked and insulted by those daring, proud and boastful men.
  •  Done I slightly rewrote to make it more explicit. Let me know if this resolves the issue.
• In enslave the remaining survivors, I believe "remaining" should be dropped if the sentence does not refer to one group of survivors i.e. not all of them.
  •  Done removed "remaining"
• Why not say what happened to Paul Bar Zainab in the body text; the note seems odd place for that since his death is directly related to the topic.
  •  Done the note moved to main body
• Amida should be wikilinked in the lede and in the body; Diyarbakır should be wikilinked in the body
  •  Done
• Images are properly licenced
  • Y noted
• Is the Gold dinar showing Kavadh? Assuming that's the one mentioned in the article, I'd say that in the caption. Is there any significance or reason to difference in spelling Kavad/Kavadh?
  •  Done changed the caption to be more explicit, also adopted the same spelling throughout the article
  • Both are valid. In the sources that I read, they use "Kavadh". However, in Talk:Kavad_I#Requested_move_28_February_2018 a user provided evidence that the other is more popular. In Google Ngram, they appear equivalent in frequency, see results.

• Earwig's Copyvio Detector gives the article all clear
  • Y noted
• The article reads sufficiently broad and focused at the same time; the prose appears to be neutral and it is stable judging from the article history
  • Y noted

Reference spotchecks

• ref #7 was checked and it appears to be in order
• ref #13 was checked and it appears to be in order
• ref #18 was checked and it appears to be in order

I have reviewed the article and, following the recent edits, I'm confident it meets all GA criteria. Passing--Tomobe03 (talk) 08:52, 11 June 2026 (UTC)