Battle of Artaxata

[jirisys]

I fing ambigous results, however most indicate a Roman victory but the legions obviously decided not to march and Lucvllvs was replaced by Pompeivs. But these two (However biased they may be) say otherwise:
http://www.armeniapedia.org/index.php?title=Armenian_History_Timeline
http://www.tacentral.com/history_story.asp?story_no=6

I find it difficult to beleive Tigranes and Mithridates won, but I am no historian, I want the truth!

~Jirisys (No, I'm not going to take a cheap shot at the pun that you thought I was going to put :laugh4:)

[Titus Marcellus Scato]

Definitely a Roman victory on the battlefield - but not the total, final, war-ending Roman victory that had been expected by the Senate. The fugitive Pontic king Mithradites escaped, and Lucullus failed to follow up his success and capture the Armenian capital city, partially due to the winter weather and partially due to his legionaries becoming uncooperative, they were unhappy with his overly-stern discipline.

So the battle could be described as a tactical success for Rome, but a strategic failure. From the Armenian point of view, they lost the battle but saved their kingdom for a while - so if mere survival is a victory when fighting so relentless an opponent as Rome, then the Armenians 'won'.

For the Romans, it's a bit like the Battle of Cannae was for Hannibal - a great victory on the field, but it didn't result in the fall of Rome, and it didn't bring the hoped-for end to the war.

And since the Roman Senate only settled for total victory in war, the outcome of the Armenian campaign thus far was deemed 'unsatisfactory'.

See this link for more details: http://www.historyofwar.org/articles/wars_third_mithridatic.html#3

[anubis88]

IIRC Appian never mentions any defeat by Lucullus... Can't really really be certain tough... Vartan is definetly the guy to answer this without looking much up

[jirisys]

IIRC Appian never mentions any defeat by Lucullus... Can't really really be certain tough... Vartan is definetly the guy to answer this without looking much up

You seriously think he is? :laugh4: He hasn't logged on yet so I figured I'd ask here.

~Jirisys ()

[artavazd]

apparently The Romans never let go of their "unsatisfactory" victory against King Tigran II. In 35 BC Marc Anthony promises Armenia as a present to Cleopatra. He was unsuccessful on the battlefield, but is able to capture King Artavazd when he invites him to Alexandria. Artavazd dies in prison in Alexandria. An example of two stubborn civilizations clashing. :)

[vartan]

apparently The Romans never let go of their "unsatisfactory" victory against King Tigran II. In 35 BC Marc Anthony promises Armenia as a present to Cleopatra. He was unsuccessful on the battlefield, but is able to capture King Artavazd when he invites him to Alexandria. Artavazd dies in prison in Alexandria. An example of two stubborn civilizations clashing. :)
And as we can see, Arto is still quite a name in Armenia today, haha. Yup. Marcus Antonius. Where Lucullus failed, Antonius succeeded. But hey, it gave Octavian one more excuse to go to war against Antonius. How dare Antonius ruin the good name of Rome in the East?, claimed Octavian's party. Not declaring war explicitly against Antonius, Cleopatra was the ideal choice, with her being the Egyptian serpent that was plotting against Rome and what not. Also, remember the Battle of Tigranocerta (Tigranakert) that never took place? Well, although Lucullus was not able to march on the famous capital and steal the temple goods, which held a vast portion of the treasury, Marcus Antonius successfully did so three decades later in the 4th decade BC.