Imperial Rome and Parthia: Fighting over Armenia Eastern Rome and Sasanians: Fighting over Armenia Eastern Rome and Arabs: Fighting over Armenia Rome and Seljuks: Fighting over Armenia Georgia and Seljuks: Fighting over Armenia Ottomans and Safavids: Fighting over Armenia Armenia: AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
That is too far fetched ngl. They both had different religion, culture and heritage. One of them had to take the culture and religion of the other to make the union plausible
@@BlazingFlame69 Yes but Iran was in the process of Christinisation and had a significant and rising Christian minority like everywhere else there at that time. It is forseeable that they would'e been a Christian majority in a century or more had the Arabs not invaded and Islamized Iran since the old Zoroastrian order was becoming disilutioned like pagan Egypt or Rome.
They actually did or at least tried of. Khosrow II married daughter of Emperor Maurice... ...and it led to (or at least didn't prevent) the catastrophic war of 602-628 that basically destroyed both empires. There was also strange episode with Khosrow I Anushirawan when Emperor Justin almost ceremonially adopted him... but his nephew Justinian the Great and his advisors intervened. Result? Khosrow hated Justinian guts for the rest of his life. To be fair the last episode considered a simple diplomatical favor by the majority of historians. However I read a few who actually sees this as an genuine attempt to create some kind of Sassanian-Byzantine confederation.
1:42 The Parthians didn’t abandon their nomadic origins. Their military style was guerrilla warfare, a nomadic style. They grew up with bows and arrows and riding horses. In a nomadic way, the Parthian kings had different capitals and moved from one capital to another in different seasons. During their campaigns, Parthian kings stationed in his nomadic tents. They were a noble nation, and maintained their nomadic culture at the same time as their civilization.
@@someonefromdesert LOL funny comment 😂 maybe not knowing it in terms of "Persia" necessary in the West, but as Parthia, So yes, Persia, Parthia, or the Medes as a model of Iran (Persia) were here clown!!
Because they were already over extended and never made a serious attempt to take over persia. There were a few random emperor led invasions but nothing big enough to actually succeed.
Correct ! That is why i hate youtube lately...So much misinformation in the air, i am honestly going to stop using youtube for information and only gonna use it for music and some stuff. Going back to books
So you are telling me that Crassus, Antony, Trajan, Caracalla, Carus, Julian and etc. weren't serious? All of these men were just bored and decided to attack Iranians?
@artinrahideh1229 no they weren't. They did not use the full power of the empire because that power was needed to hold down other borders. They were over extended. Read what is said.
@@ADobbin1 problem is people are not very inteligent to wrap their minds around that concept...that certain system would not use its power to spread itself further but rather use its power to consolidate...
@@ADobbin1 nobody used their whole power? You ALWAYS have to maintain garrisons in borders to protect you from any internal or external threat! What you say makes no sense specially when we consider that they never needed their whole strength except some wars
oh, what a lovely video, thank you so much. I always hated how romaboos could not fathom that Rome conquering Iran would be like Iran conquering Rome - nigh impossible
The issue is that winning battles doesn't mean winning wars and while both sides won battles against each other , neither could decisively conquer each other . Even if Rome did conquer Persia , it is unlikely that they could have held onto it for very long and they probably would be overthrown in less than a century given they would have been massively overstretched by that point .
I’d say it is slightly less unrealistic than Persia conquering Rome. Persia had very weak naval power even in the Indian Ocean compared to Rome (hence the failure to interdict Roman trad ein the Red and Indian Ocenas), in contrast to Rome’s dominance of the Med. Moreover the Romans conquered the Parthian and Sassanid capitols quite a few times while the Parthians only ever came close to doing that once with Constantinople. But solidifying control over the place and warding off possible threats from the mountain highlands and the steppes is another issue.
@@Al-Timur Would they? If they won that early I doubt they would collapse into decades of succession crises that led to the Arab Conquest, Though Khosrau the 2nd was not popular by the Nobility, Its questionable if they would really kill him when he had several armies.
@@awestruckcardboard3431The arabs still had superior generals and tactics and the war was extremely draining on both empires. The siege on Constantinople was a hail Mary in hopes of getting Heraculis to stop campaigning in side their empire. Taking the city doesn't mean the Persians instantly recover all the destroyed armies they lost throughout the war and if anything they would have to spread themselves thin to garrison all the new territory.
@@MegaTang1234 They would still have armies on the field, Not attacking each other and not spent in a Civil War hypothetically, The only real threats after a Byzantine Conquest would be the Turks on their north, And their enternal situation of ruling over peoples of Anatolia and Egypt. Which they would have to deal with but I am certain they will be able to put down. They would then have several years of peace before the Arabs attack. I personally believe that because of the Byzantine-Sassanid War it enabled for the Arab Conquest, In this timeline the Persians would not have been spent, And would have experienced Generals on the field (if they would live that long), Examples of the Battle of al-Qādisiyyah suggest that the Persians were equal in tactics with the Arabs and only fell due to hearings of Muslim reinforcements and the death of their Commander. Tactics of horsemen (And obviously others) such as feigned retreats would be expected by these Sassanid Generals that did not spend years of infighting. (Though I do think the Arabs would give the Persians their run for the Money.) The only gripe is that of Khalid Ibn Walid. And I personally belive he will be able to constantly give Persia defeats before he either wins the conquest and or dies.
@@MegaTang1234The Sassanids had only taken minimal damage compared to the Romans when the siege of Constantinople begins, Heraclius loses his support and finances if the city Falls and hadn’t yet began his Mesopotamian campaign so Khosrow would still have the legitimacy needed after taking New Rome to Win without exhaustion.
@@goattier7728 We history buffs know the war well we just have to start popularising the name, tho Im still gona call the the Twilight War as to me antiquity ends with the Byzantines destroying Gothic Italy.
Before anyone says the Romans got to Persian capitals remember Persians got several Roman emperors. Rome was centered around a city and Persia around a dynasty
After the fall of the republic Rome wasnt centralized arround a city as the Roman Senate didnt rule anymore and the Imperātōr would be where the main army is. It was actually the bigest problem in Rome that they had no laws of sucession since Augustus didnt want to admit that he was king and the republic was gone, had the romans adopted a system of the emporor adopting an heir eliminating most civil wars the Empire might have never fallen and history would have been soo different.
Great video! Love the topic and I think you added alot of detail that is important in analysing the persian roman rivalry that can be sometimes lacking in other videos. Keep up the good work!
Crassus's head is said (Plutarch I think) to have been sent to the Armenian capital Artaxata where a wedding celebration between an Armenian princess and a Parthian prince was going on and as part of the festivities a Greek play "The Bacchae" of Euripides was being performed and the head was used as a prop in the play which is about how the female devotees of the god Dionysus(Bacchus) became so frenzied when their female only rites were spied on by a man that they tore him to bits in rage. This story also proves that the educated elites of both Armenia and Parthia were familiar with Greek culture thanks to hellenization after Alexander's conquests.
Alexander the great is sometimes called the last Achamenid because his civilian administration of the Empire relying on colaborators incorperated so much persian way of doing things, it was only the army which remained solidly macedonian having a phalangist core rather than a cavlarly one.
That was because it was. Rome ruled most of Western Europe and the Mediterranean. At its height, something like 25% or more of the world population lived and died in its borders. Only China was as massive. Parthia was mostly just Iran and Iraq today and had a fraction of the population.
11:20 Did you say Greco-Persian rule of the Parthians??! It doesn't make any sense. You actually introduced the Parthian dynastie as half-Greek and half-Iranian, while you know better that they were an Iranian tribe. Don’t name my people and their empires as others please. Their interest in Greek culture does not make them and their empire Greek, just as Alexander's Persianization does not make Alexander and his empire Persian.
As you correctly say the parthian empire was not a direct continuation of the Seleucid greek colonial empire but rather a native persian empire that even arose out of a nativist desire to topple greek colonial rule and bring back the glory of the former Archaemenid empire. Yet again in a sense the parthian empire was still an indoeuropean empire and probably even more so than both the archaemenid and the sassanian empire, whose rulers came from Persis (Fars). Since the parthians were actually not persians but a tribe of the Scythians from the north. So not such a huge difference between being ruled by greeks ot scythians in both cases you are ruled by europeans not self rule. Only difference is probably that the parthians much like the Alans were still a branch of persian speaking peoples probably a little closer to their culture than greeks...
@@zabooza74 Absolutely wrong!!! The Parthian were not a European rule over the Iranians, they were Iranian themselves, and of course a new and evolved branch of the Scythians as well. But the question that arises here is, what tribe are the Scythians themselves? They were also an Iranian people. Of course, some branches of them migrated to Europe and modern Russia, but they were ethnically Iranian. The Scythians were Iranian tribes, from the nomadic Aryan people, who geographically reached from the north to the southern plains of Siberia, from the south to the Caspian Sea to Central Asia, from the east to the Sinkian region to China, and from the west to the Danube River. The Scythians were Iranian both racially and linguistically, and they themselves were divided into different tribes such as Scythians, Dahe, Massagets, Amirgians, and even new and evolved tribes wich the Parthians and Sarmatians were one of theme.I don't want to make fun of anything, but your comment was one of the weirdest I've ever seen.
@@CyrusPersia-wv7zo Actually not the Scythians were closer to the Huns there is lots of scholarship on this apart from weird iranian supremacist circles...
@@zabooza74 I have no idea on this matter, as there are many branches of the Scythians, each forming new groups in their own way, such as the mixture of Scythians and Slavic peoples in Russia, which led to a specific group in the Russian region i guess. There are many theories about their branches, but regarding the Scythians themselves as ethnically, what is confirmed by all is that they were Eastern Iranic pple. The Scythians I referred to were evolved Iranians and are considered part of Iran's history, including the Parthians. So no, the rule of the Parthians has nothing to do with the Europeans, and it was an Iranian rule, a very clear and confirmed thing.
The Armenians were such a large factor of the dynamics between Persia and Rome. Now I'm curious what was different during the earlier times of Alexander and his successors.
Man this is an interesting topic and well researched but the slide show thing doesn’t work on RUclips as it’s tough to pick up the details on the slide text and listen and take in images all at once! Keep it up man
but overall, it was a great video, especially the last part with the examples where you thoroughly analyzed the issues across different periods. Just please be careful with the way you express certain things, because a mistake in wording can give a different meaning to the sentence. Thank you for your video.
I don't see why they would be upset? Rome was a far stronger power than Macedon and yet couldn't conquer Persia as Alexander had done. Giving credence to the fact that the Parthian Empire was stronger than its predecessors.
@@robertalaverdov8147 I think it was more about desire with Rome. In the Parthian era, the region was just not that valuable. By the Sassanid area when it was organized, Rome was likely too weak to achieve the conquest. There were a few attempts: Trajan, Caracella, and Julian. However, even with those attempts, they seem half baked.
9:53 Partians didnt do shock and awe, that was for the later sasanids. Partian armies where 90% horse archer 10% catapract, to the sassanids 10% horse archer 90% catapract, theres a reasin in Age of Empires II partian tactics improoves your horse archers. Partians fought in the tactic I would call the caracole, where you dont engage the enemy steel in hand in mele combat and run them down with your heavy cavalry, but rather ride in circles infront of the enemy or arround the enemy and shower them with arrows till they are pincushons. In modern doctrine terms the partians relied on overwhelming firepower, altho there is no such thing as overwhelming firepower before cannons.
I get the logistics of not invading Persia but still surprised it didn't happen with Rome considering Persia and Mesopotamia were both part of Alexander's Empire and Hellenized.
Because the internal problems of the Roman empire did not allow them to have a successful campaign to Persia, and of course the Parthian and Sassanid military and tactics were much more successful compared to the Achaemenids. One of the important tactics that played a key role was guerrilla warfare, which means a battle of attrition. With this tactic, the Persians could succeed even with a third of the Roman army. Also, an interesting point about the Hellenistic period that you may not know. We know this period as Hellenism, but the period of Hellenism itself was a cultural evolution between Hellenic culture and other cultures, which caused several forms of Hellenism to develop in every corner of the empire. For example, Seleucid Hellenism was different from Hellenism in Egypt. Many historians believe that the term "Hellenism" has a universal meaning and is not only related to Greek cylture. Ms. Amélie Kuhrt and Dr. Susan Sherwin White have written a book called "From Samarkhand to Sardis" which is related to the Seleucid period, and this book is known by other researchers as "a new vision of the Seleucid Empire". In this book, they had tried to place the Seleucid kingdom in the zone of Asia and the East, and many of the sources they have shown are from Mesopotamia and Iranic itself, which shows that not all sources are in Greek. And it is possible to have a different view from the first Seleucus to the last king of the Seleucids, Antiochus VIII, who are rulers who speak Greek, but at the same time have an Iranian and Mesopotamian tradition. We should not have the wrong view that this is a cultural invasion by the Greeks or Iranians, but rather a cultural evolution took place between them. I recommend that book to you
@@someonefromdesert If by "central nomads" you mean the Seljuks, Mongols and Timurids, you are right, but if you mean the nomad such as Parthians, Safavids, and Afsharians, you are wrong!!
00:08 This map is not accurate in terms of size. You can search for an accurate Persian/Roman map to see the BIG difference. Persia, during the Parthian Empire period, reached 2,800,000 km² at its largest extent, and Rome reached 5,000,000 km² at its largest extent. Even if we compare the largest state of Rome to the smallest state of Persia, Persia is still much larger than what we see on ur map.
Love the brat reference. Funny, but will also date the video in the future. Not a bad thing in my opinion; makes it easy for people in the future to tell the cultural influences at the time of this video’s creation
You missed the main reason, and thats the Iranian Identity, people in Iran had a national identity for over thousand of year, that survived multiple occupations, every time Iran was occupied people revolted and kicked out the invaders directly or indirectly by cultural assimilation
If I could travel back in time to visit any city of the past it would be dependant on if Im a ghost observer or if I am there as my flesh and blood real self. As a ghost observer Id like to see Rome when it was still capitol of the Empire with all its monuments intacked. As my real flesh and blood self Id like to see Rīgu in the early 30s, that is when our capitol was most latviska in all of history, Id be very interested in conversing with the people to feel the pulse of the nation.
Another advantage the Parthian's/Sassanid's had was that the Roman Empire had aassive border they had to control and the fact the Romans spent a lot of those military resources killing each other since they mever fully established what gave Emporer's legitimacy. If they dedicated a massive force to Invade Persia that wpuld definitely leave gaps on their already extended borders. And then imagine if something went foul. That wpuld require even more military resources from an already strained border. Realistically what the Romans prob should've done(in my opinion) is continue thier pushes into Germania and Dacia. Theu definitely could've consolidated a border albeit over not profitable lands. Same with the Picts. They had significant forces in Britain to fight back Pictish/Caledonian incursions when they damn near annexed the entire region before. Having a bit of short term dedication to Britain and Germania would've long term drastically shortened the Border they had to extensively defend leaving more troops for the Persian/Arab/Scythian Border. North Africa was another massive border they had to Garrison from the Saharan opposition. Not much they realistically could've done about that one though.
Rome was a duplicate copy of the Persians. It's eagle standard was basically a rip-off of the Fravashi symbol. It's impossible for the son to "conquer" his father.
@14:11 is not entirely accurate. The Romans and Persians fought over religion prior (just not as much as a focus). Byzantines/Romans often citing protection of Christians in Persia as a cause of war and in the treaties.
Would be interesting if that rivalry was Macedonian Empire VS Rome instead of Persia VS Rome imo You could do a scenario on that; What if the Macedonian Empire survived?
If it was the case, the Macedonians were undoubtedly defeated by the Romans, just as they were later defeated by the Parthians during the Seleucid period. Only the Parthians and the Sassanids could face the great Roman power, not even Alexander could stand against Rome.
Issue with Macedon is that they were their own worse enemies. If you don't have the Diadochii wars, they might have survived. Even up until Rome's fall, they were fighting themselves (Rome had a similar issue).
Geneticamente, anche, in parte. Ma culturalmente siamo Latini, Romani. La nostra lingua, la nostra religione, le nostre usanze sono molto, ma molto più latine che germaniche anche qui nel Nord Italia.
I am sure that even if Alexander was in that period with his entire army, and if he had faced Surena with his 10,000 Parthian archers, the same fate as Crassus would have awaited him. The Parthians’ military tactic was a guerrilla tactic (meaning attritional warfare). With this tactic, the Parthians and Persians could fight for hours with a small number of troops and ultimately emerge victorious!!
Repeating the same old argument that achamenid of late 4th century was weak. How? Your reasoning is that Egypt was just reconquered. Well by that logic many balkan tribes and greek city states that had rose up in revolt had just been reconquered by Alexander does tgat mean macedonian hegemony was weak? Achamenid army was able to break phalanx at issus and cause massive casualties. Achamenid were riding high with their recent reconquest and had undertaken military reforms which made the army formidable than it had been under cyrus or darius. Post Peloponnesean war persia was the true politicianaster
Europe is conquering itself using immigration as a weapon. They've given the world (except Russians) a greenlight through inaction. I don't think it's their fault, I would too if I didn't live in the US.
@@cubbelicommando Pre islamic Iranian empires (except Medians) had several capitals around the empire The Parthians had 7 different capitals with 4 or 5 of them being beyond Zagros mountains and outside Mesopotamia The sack of Ctesiphon barely even mattered to them The capital that was sacked was one or two cities away from the eastern borders of Rome It was sacked whenever there wasn't any army there or the empire was in civil war or during the reign of a weak king such as Osroes I (a usurper) Look at the states of the Parthians and the Sassanid when Trajan and Carus attacked Their empire was literally divided in two with the western parts of it being seized by a usurper king called Osroes I (same guy who provoked Trajan to attack) and the east was taken by a Kushan king while the Shahanshah wasn't present during Carus invasion
@@cubbelicommando Take a look at where Parthia was and then take a look at how far Italy is Actually they did come near Greece right before Ventidius campaigns
@@cubbelicommando Be a man instead of hiding behind fake accounts 😂 Everyone knows it's you Papaz 😂 No matter how many fake accounts you are using 😂 The way you comment gives you away for everyone 😂
Simple answer is logistics. Rome, Parthia, India and China never could have conquered one another because of the limits of logistics. I guess if Rome AND Parthia pooled an invasion of India they could pull it off, but trying to manage affairs from the British Isles to the Indian subcontinent at that time would have been too much for any army of bureaucrats.
While I see that, Alexander the Great (with less resources) took the East despite the logistical strain. I think it was more desire, Rome just didn't care. By the Sassanid time, though, Persia could have held off Rome.
They couldn't pull an invasion on India. Alexander retreated from India after failed campaign, Hun were driven out from India,India survived against the Arab Caliphate campaigns for 500yrs(which Rome & Persia couldn't survive)
@@akhripasta2670 India wasn't a nation, but rather a collection of nations or entire region. The Arabs did successfully conquer most of India with the Mughals later. Alexander didn't necessarily get beat, his men wanted to go home. His successors preferred to negotiate with the rising Mauryan Empire which was a powerful Indian state that emerged after Alexander's death.
@volbound1700 The video on this topic is during the Gupta Empire and it's vassal Vakataka also known as Gupta Vakataka age🥴 "His successor negotiated"😂 Alexander's successor lost & had to secede Gandhara & Gedrosia
@@akhripasta2670 They definitely didn't win in battle but his successors were also fighting other successors. Seleucus I (who negotiated) had to also fight Antigonas in the West and it was seen as more important of a fight than some frontier provinces. India was always seen as remote and less important than the core of Alexander's Empire in the Middle East. Not to take anything away from the Mauryans. Seleucus got over 300 War Elephants from Mauryans to win the Battle of Ipsus in Turkey over Antigonas and founded the Seleucid Empire.
Because Ventidius got pulled back to Rome and assassinated. If Marc Antony won the civil war, or maybe if Ventidius was on Octavian's side and survived, Rome with 'ventidian' legions would demolish Persia and all other enemies and should just continue spreading for centuries. Ventidius reformed the middle Roman legion in a way that made it totally overpowered. It was already overpowered, the scutum gladius testudo legion was already virtually immune to ranged enemies, and inherently superior to any infantry or light cavalry on the opposite side. It's only weakness was mid to heavy cavalry. Romans didn't really have a solution to that except relying on increasing their own auxilia cavalry to counter it. That's how they turned around the Punic wars, that's how they handled the Gaulish and Germanic tribes, that's how they countered the Seleucids, and also of course the Parthians. Until Ventidius. He had the idea of making all auxilia be slingers, ditch the archers, the cavalries etc, just make them all slingers and organize logistics so that that they all have bunch of lead ammo. Because the (mid to) heavy cavalry - the only weakness of the legion - is immune to arrows, but it is very much vulnerable to slings. The sharp tip of the arrow will bounce off, but the blunt force of the sling bullets just transfers through the armor and break skulls and other bones. So 'ventidian' legion is a very simple thing, just two types of soldiers, both on foot - legionaries and slingers. And this proved to be superbly efficient, the ventidian legions made huge victories over Parthians. But unfortunately, Ventidius, in the midst of being celebrated as a great victor over the Parthians, gets assassinated, disappears from history, his side loses the civil war, and his invention gets forgotten. The winning side instead continues the army policy in the direction of increasing the cavalry, scutum gladius and testudo all relatively quickly disappear, so does the legion system. The result of these later Roman army changes is the Byzantine army, which is almost nothing like the middle Rome army, and much more like the Parthian (and Sassanid) army, because that's what they thought you need to have (and have lots of) in order to win - heavy cavalry. Ventidius showed otherwise, but was unfortunately forgotten, as was his military invention of the supreme pre-modern army type.
Rome did not conquer Persia but they did take their capital multiple times. The first time was during emperor Trajan when they captured both Babylon and ctesiphon but Trajan died due to a stroke and the empire immediately once again went into a succession crisis between Hadrian and others. It was Hadrian who decided that is it worth civilising the middle east or consolidating it? Which was not possible considering Persian culture was vastly different and Hadrian had to consolidate the vast empire that Trajan left him. The second time was during emperor gallienus during the crisis of the third century where the emperor valerion was captured by the sassanids and taken to their capital by Shapur I to be humiliated and tortured after valerion responded to raids by the Persians during crisis in the Roman Empire. When valerion died, his corpse was hung as a trophy and the Persians once again carried out raids in the Levant and even Egypt to which the Roman governor of Syria odenathus responded by raising an army as the main Roman army was busy fighting barbarians. Odenathus although was not successful in taking the city, he did destroy it to the point of no return and restore the territories. Rome could have conquered Persia multiple times but it would have been pointless as the Roman empire was already too spread out or faced internal problems. In short Rome captured Ctesiphon five times- 116-117 AD Trajan and Hadrian 164 AD Avidius Cassius captured it but had to leave ctesiphon when a new peace agreement was made 197 AD Septimus Severus sacked ctesiphon and sold all its remaining inhabitants to slavery 393 AD Emperor Julian captured it but died due to his wounds and his army got bored and left.
The exaggeration of the importance of the conquest of the city of Ctesiphon was only a type of Roman propaganda. In fact, the Persians and Parthians did not have only one capital, but Ctesiphon was the closest to the Roman border. As important as the conquest of this city by the Romans was, the Persians also conquered the city of Antioch many times, with the difference that they did not use propaganda like the Romans did. However, in practice, it had the same meaning for the Romans as the conquest of Ctesiphon had for the Persians. Without considering issues such as the capture of Roman flags by the Parthians, the capture of the Roman emperor by the Sassanids, the deaths of Roman emperors such as Gordianus and Julian, the conquests of the city of Antioch, and the payment of tributes to the Persians in different periods, imagine if the Persians had also engaged in propaganda as the Romans did. What do you think would have happened?
@@faraz8135 what an insane cope, Ctesiphon was literally their capital since the emergence of the parthian empire and remained so for 800 years till the Arabs wiped it out. When the Arabs conquered ctesiphon, zoroastrianism literally went to a small minority still salty about Christianity and Islam. It's not an exaggeration that ctesiphon was not only the capital but also the seat of many Persian Empires. The reason they kept running away from ctesiphon and kept another capital near India was because the Persians kept losing and attacked whenever Rome faced a crisis or a civil war, Antioch was not even a Roman capital but only the capital of Syria palestina where the governer usually resided. The proof of victory for Rome is that Rome captured Ctesiphon multiple times but the Persians could never capture Constantinople nor Rome even once. Christianity still survives and rules the world while zoroastrianism is wallowing at the fringes that is the proof that Rome won.
@@sangumlinggi8330 Brah!!! your comments are lacking in logic. When you don't have information about the Persian imperial system, why do you comment on it? The existence of several capitals has nothing to do with your illogical claim. The Persians, Parthians, and even the Medes always had multiple capitals. For example, during the Achaemenid period, the Persian capitals were Ecbatana, Persepolis, Babylon, and Susa. During the Parthian period, they were Ctesiphon, Seleucia, and Susa. During the Sassanian period, they were Ctesiphon, Estakhr, and Bishapur. According to their tradition, Iranian kings had several capitals in different seasons and moved between them. Antioch was also part of the eastern province capitals of the Roman Empire and was an important city for them, just as Ctesiphon was for the Persians. And how do you expect the Persians to conquer Rome when Rome is kilometers away from the borders of Persia, while Ctesiphon is no fare of the neighboring of the Roman Empire? Have you ever seen a geographical map? Do you even know where Ctesiphon and Rome are located? Think a little logically boy!!! It is also true that the Romans always had many internal problems, and civil wars. However, the Persians could defeat them at any point and didn’t necessarily need to wait for their internal issues. In many cases, the Persians were even one of the reasons for Rome's civil wars and instability, such as the events that occurred after the battles of Carrhae, Edessa, and Mark Antony's campaign following their defeat. + We can clearly see the victories of the Persians and Parthians even during periods of internal order and stability in Rome, including times when Iran was embroiled in civil war but still managed to defeat the Romans. An great example is the last Parthian king, Artabanus V, who was defeated by Ardashir of Sassanid, but before that, he managed to defeat the Romans one for last time in the Parthians period. Com out of your fantasy bro!!! My last point about your comment about Zoroastrianism. Zoroastrianism still exists, in small numbers but still alive. And its influence can be seen in the modern world, even in Christianity itself. Many Christian traditions have Zoroastrian and Mithraic roots, both of these are Iranian religions. Additionally, for your general information, Christianity did not originate in Rome and is not a Roman religion.
First of d****SS. We Romans were not trying to conquer Persian or Persia. We were just defending our home. We were just defending Europe and Rome. They had attacked us first. Like everyone else...
16:01 A RUclips Channel has this as a channel logo & pfp Good content to follow if anyone enjoys Chinese Three Kingdoms history and some other gameplay related to Total War and other big or occasionally indie titles!
Romans when fighting against de-centralized, savage tribal nations: lmao for the glory of Rome. We are superior!!!11!!1 Romans when fighting against centralized, developed states: WELL IT'S JUST BEYOND OUR SUPPLY LINES AND LOGISTICS. Even though Greece and Anatolia are practically right next door...
Alexander conquered it in 10 years….. Rome was always in constant civil war, + Persia only got to Constantinople and failed the siege, while Rome sacked Persias capital Cstephion 5 times, and won 11 wars, while Persia won 8….. Don’t forget Heraclius stomped Perisa SO hard defeating 4 different Perisan armies while being surrounded IN Persia…. Left them so weak after the war that Perisa was completely islamified by the Arabs in the 7th century, while Rome went on until 1453, Rome still exists as a city too, and is undoubtedly one of the reasons for the Wests supremacy over the world.
I dont understand your second sentence. Greece and Anatolia WERE conquered. The Romans actually even fought with the Greeks while at the same team dealing with Hannibal.
@@pantheon3671 Rome was usually in civil war when an emperor died, the strongest general took over beating the rest. Perisa took Anatolia for a little and then lost when they reached Constantinople. Rome while in civil war, and foreign wars still endured and sacked Perisas capital 5 times and its religious one…… not to mention Rome won 11 wars, and Persia 8.
@@pantheon3671 I'm saying that Anatolia and Greece are wealthy and rich land that is developed and could support their supply lines. Need food? There's Egypt.
@@Vntihero That's assuming the Persians also didn't have problems of their own, when they also fought others from their East. Also, they also had civil wars of their own, from Achaemenid to Parthian to Sassanid. It wasn't particularly peaceful in transitions.
@@Amen6magi there were some people before our persian ancestors like kasi people or burnt city of ilamian and ... there descendants still present in our lands .the word aria dosent mean the group of people that came from north it mean noble , and best of people. the land always was called home of aria or arianna-vaejeh(home of aria) as it is written in survived letters before savage ARABIC conquest.
It's not that they couldn't, it's that they didn't. It would be like me saying Rome couldn't conquer Ireland. We fought them, we were on their border and they didn't conquer us. Julius Caesar had planned an invasion of Parthia but senators murdered him shortly before he left to go on that campaign. Augustus came after him and Augustus declared his desired "natural borders" for the Roman empire, based on geography. Such was his reputation that all of his successors followed it. With the exceptions of Claudius + Agricola (in the time of Domitian's reign) conquering Britain, consolidating England + Wales. And Trajan being forced to fight Decebalus (leader of Dacians around 105 AD) because he was building forts on his southern border with Rome when he had agreed with the Romans to built forts on his northern border to help keep enemies out, this happened twice. So Trajan's hand was forced and he took Dacia. Then Trajan had a golden opportunity to invade Parthia, he did and it wasn't close, he took a lot, quickly. But when Trajan died of sickness his desired heir (one of his generals) didn't get to inherit because his wife used her influence to make Hadrian heir. Hadrian had some weird ideas, including giving back everything Trajan took from the Parthians and not fighting them. Considering the Roman's had 60 Scorpia per legion and could include more, I don't think the horse archers in the dessert narrative makes it so Romans couldn't conquer Parthia, it's mainly they didn't go past the lines Augustus drew, and Augustus let a river be the border.
in fact, they wanted, but couldn't. They tried many times, but they didn't succeed. Some clear examples are the campaigns of Crassus, Caracalla, Severus Alexander and Julian. Conquering Iran has been the dream of every empire in history, because it is located in an important geopolitical region that connects Europe and Asia, and because of its natural resources and fertile lands for agriculture, as well as the wealth of the Sassanid and Parthian empires. What empire would not want to conquer such a jewel?
@@faraz8135 After Augustus, (the first Roman emperor) set our what he intended as Rome's natural borders, all following Emperors were heavily influence by that. So that's why. Also Constantinople is where Europe connects with Asia, and the Roman's had it, they even made it their capital.
@@OrtonThimsbury So what was the reason for the numerous Roman campaigns in Mesopotamia and the conquest of Ctesiphon? If, as you say, the Romans were satisfied after establishing the borders of Rome and a specific border was agreed upon, then why did Trajan, even if only for a short period, refer to Mesopotamia as a new province of Rome? There is no doubt that if there had been the ability to advance further, it wouldn't have been far-fetched for them to conquer Iran as well, even though the campaigns of Alexander, Caracalla, and Julian came after Augustus and the idea you mentioned. Thus, the idea of conquering Iran and expanding eastward still existed for the Romans, which is a logical action for any empire. Also, geopolitically, Iran is located on the Silk Road, and we know that the Romans had a great need for Indian and Chinese goods, and these goods had to pass through Iran first to reach Rome. Apart from this, Iran itself had plenty of produce, both agriculturally and in spices, and most importantly, it was a constant threat to the eastern frontiers of the Roman Empire. Despite all this, do you still think that Rome never had the thought and dream of conquering Iran and never try for it?
@@faraz8135 I'm not saying they never had the thought or dream of it. Trajan attacked because the Parthians got into a war with their eastern neighbor, and because roman society had recently been accepting of his addition of Dacia, which ended the post Augustus period of no additions other than Britain (Which Caesar had already been to to set up a precedent) I think if Trajan's intended general heir had been the next emperor they would have sought to take more from the Parthians. But Hadrian had no intention to do so. I can't recall when the next attempts at expansion into Parthian territory was but I acknowledge there was a point where the Parthians caused really big concern to the Romans, but that was not when the Romans were at their peak around Trajan's times. I think Augustus had about 50 legions at the end of his civil war, he disbanded all but 28. Going by those numbers I don't think Parthia had much of a chance. Even if they were possibly the ones who would have put up the biggest fight. I can't remember all the names of the leaders from back then, I remember a Parthian army had a successful campaign against the eastern provinces of Rome and were attacked by the leader of an oasis town on the way back, a smart leader who's wife went on to take Egypt from the Romans before being defeated by Aurelion. Anyway, in that Period Rome couldn't take lands off Parthia, if they weren't Sassanids by then, I can't recall it's been awhile. TLDR: It seems like Parthia was Rome's most powerful neighbor but at the same time I think if Augustus let his 50 legions, or even his 28 legions do their terminus thing it would have been like Eren's rumbling for the rest of the world, even China.
@@OrtonThimsbury exactly👍 I said the same thing you just mentioned, no law can remain.Trajan ended Augustus' border policy, and then Hadrian reinstated it. In Roman governance, such implementation and revocation of laws occurred frequently. For example, laws and rights for Christians and Jews of the Empire. We know that during Valerian's reign, many Christians were captured, and Christianity was severely restricted in Rome. However, a few years later, during the time of Constantine the great, not only were more rights given to Christian residents, but this religion also became the official faith of the Empire. For this reason, such laws should not be taken seriously or considered eternal. In a period when the Romans believed that advancing into their eastern borders was possible, they pursued it, like during the era of Severus Alexander, which was at the beginning of the Sassanid rule. Alexander believed he could end this empire at its inception, but at other times, for various reasons when military campaigns or conquests were impossible for them, they enacted such laws.
@@sowonkun Just because they had more soldiers, doesn't mean that they were at their prime LOL Plus modern estimates don't agree with muslim sources over the numbers of Roman and Sassanid armies XD Compare them with their actual prime like during the reigns of Shapur II, Khosrow Anushiravan, Justinian I and Maurice Both empires were weakened by the time arabs started attacking
@@sowonkun That line alone proved me that you either didn't read anything about them or don't want to know about them LOL They were anything but stable XD Plus both sides had lost their experienced soldiers and commanders during their last war LOL
Up until Byzantine era, Rome was significantly stronger than Persia. Pre-Byzantine era, the only chances they would have had is during the crisis of the 3rd Century but Palmyra waxed them.
Imperial Rome and Parthia: Fighting over Armenia
Eastern Rome and Sasanians: Fighting over Armenia
Eastern Rome and Arabs: Fighting over Armenia
Rome and Seljuks: Fighting over Armenia
Georgia and Seljuks: Fighting over Armenia
Ottomans and Safavids: Fighting over Armenia
Armenia: AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
Azerbaijan (with the Turks) and Iran(with the Russians): Fighting over Armenia
Armenia is the gorgeous boy of caucuses
@@ajzmn3538 Russia "fighting" over Armenia so hard that Armenia decided to seek closer ties with NATO 😆
@@REAPERthePRUSKIE Armenia is a lady so beautiful others just cannot stop trying to take it for themselves.
@@BlazingFlame69Yeah Persia had em but after qajar dynasty our country's waifu was lost to the Russians ☹️
Imagine if the Sassanians and Byzantines married into eachother's dynasties and formed a super Persian-Roman Empire.
If only the Romans had a stable line of Succession.
That is too far fetched ngl. They both had different religion, culture and heritage. One of them had to take the culture and religion of the other to make the union plausible
@@BlazingFlame69 Yes but Iran was in the process of Christinisation and had a significant and rising Christian minority like everywhere else there at that time. It is forseeable that they would'e been a Christian majority in a century or more had the Arabs not invaded and Islamized Iran since the old Zoroastrian order was becoming disilutioned like pagan Egypt or Rome.
I did this in Crusader Kings 3 Fallen Eagle. Shit was dope
They actually did or at least tried of.
Khosrow II married daughter of Emperor Maurice...
...and it led to (or at least didn't prevent) the catastrophic war of 602-628 that basically destroyed both empires.
There was also strange episode with Khosrow I Anushirawan when Emperor Justin almost ceremonially adopted him... but his nephew Justinian the Great and his advisors intervened. Result? Khosrow hated Justinian guts for the rest of his life.
To be fair the last episode considered a simple diplomatical favor by the majority of historians. However I read a few who actually sees this as an genuine attempt to create some kind of Sassanian-Byzantine confederation.
1:42 The Parthians didn’t abandon their nomadic origins. Their military style was guerrilla warfare, a nomadic style. They grew up with bows and arrows and riding horses. In a nomadic way, the Parthian kings had different capitals and moved from one capital to another in different seasons. During their campaigns, Parthian kings stationed in his nomadic tents. They were a noble nation, and maintained their nomadic culture at the same time as their civilization.
The short answer is that there were no Persia to conquer.
@@someonefromdesert LOL funny comment 😂
maybe not knowing it in terms of "Persia" necessary in the West, but as Parthia, So yes, Persia, Parthia, or the Medes as a model of Iran (Persia) were here clown!!
Because they were already over extended and never made a serious attempt to take over persia. There were a few random emperor led invasions but nothing big enough to actually succeed.
Correct !
That is why i hate youtube lately...So much misinformation in the air, i am honestly going to stop using youtube for information and only gonna use it for music and some stuff.
Going back to books
So you are telling me that Crassus, Antony, Trajan, Caracalla, Carus, Julian and etc. weren't serious? All of these men were just bored and decided to attack Iranians?
@artinrahideh1229 no they weren't. They did not use the full power of the empire because that power was needed to hold down other borders. They were over extended. Read what is said.
@@ADobbin1 problem is people are not very inteligent to wrap their minds around that concept...that certain system would not use its power to spread itself further but rather use its power to consolidate...
@@ADobbin1 nobody used their whole power? You ALWAYS have to maintain garrisons in borders to protect you from any internal or external threat! What you say makes no sense specially when we consider that they never needed their whole strength except some wars
oh, what a lovely video, thank you so much.
I always hated how romaboos could not fathom that Rome conquering Iran would be like Iran conquering Rome - nigh impossible
The issue is that winning battles doesn't mean winning wars and while both sides won battles against each other , neither could decisively conquer each other .
Even if Rome did conquer Persia , it is unlikely that they could have held onto it for very long and they probably would be overthrown in less than a century given they would have been massively overstretched by that point .
@@lionandwolfboy8714 exactly what am saying brother
@@ladahieno2382I know , I was just adding my input .
@@lionandwolfboy8714 you are most welcome friend!
I’d say it is slightly less unrealistic than Persia conquering Rome. Persia had very weak naval power even in the Indian Ocean compared to Rome (hence the failure to interdict Roman trad ein the Red and Indian Ocenas), in contrast to Rome’s dominance of the Med. Moreover the Romans conquered the Parthian and Sassanid capitols quite a few times while the Parthians only ever came close to doing that once with Constantinople.
But solidifying control over the place and warding off possible threats from the mountain highlands and the steppes is another issue.
What if the sassanids won the siege of Constantinople
They would still have lost to the arabs, but not as badly as our timeline
@@Al-Timur Would they? If they won that early I doubt they would collapse into decades of succession crises that led to the Arab Conquest, Though Khosrau the 2nd was not popular by the Nobility, Its questionable if they would really kill him when he had several armies.
@@awestruckcardboard3431The arabs still had superior generals and tactics and the war was extremely draining on both empires. The siege on Constantinople was a hail Mary in hopes of getting Heraculis to stop campaigning in side their empire. Taking the city doesn't mean the Persians instantly recover all the destroyed armies they lost throughout the war and if anything they would have to spread themselves thin to garrison all the new territory.
@@MegaTang1234 They would still have armies on the field, Not attacking each other and not spent in a Civil War hypothetically, The only real threats after a Byzantine Conquest would be the Turks on their north, And their enternal situation of ruling over peoples of Anatolia and Egypt. Which they would have to deal with but I am certain they will be able to put down. They would then have several years of peace before the Arabs attack.
I personally believe that because of the Byzantine-Sassanid War it enabled for the Arab Conquest, In this timeline the Persians would not have been spent, And would have experienced Generals on the field (if they would live that long), Examples of the Battle of al-Qādisiyyah suggest that the Persians were equal in tactics with the Arabs and only fell due to hearings of Muslim reinforcements and the death of their Commander. Tactics of horsemen (And obviously others) such as feigned retreats would be expected by these Sassanid Generals that did not spend years of infighting. (Though I do think the Arabs would give the Persians their run for the Money.)
The only gripe is that of Khalid Ibn Walid. And I personally belive he will be able to constantly give Persia defeats before he either wins the conquest and or dies.
@@MegaTang1234The Sassanids had only taken minimal damage compared to the Romans when the siege of Constantinople begins, Heraclius loses his support and finances if the city Falls and hadn’t yet began his Mesopotamian campaign so Khosrow would still have the legitimacy needed after taking New Rome to Win without exhaustion.
12:56 I much perfer the more dramatic "Last war of Antiquity" Before both empires weakened.
Me too, unfortunately not many people no that name and the war in general
@@goattier7728 We history buffs know the war well we just have to start popularising the name, tho Im still gona call the the Twilight War as to me antiquity ends with the Byzantines destroying Gothic Italy.
Before anyone says the Romans got to Persian capitals remember Persians got several Roman emperors. Rome was centered around a city and Persia around a dynasty
After the fall of the republic Rome wasnt centralized arround a city as the Roman Senate didnt rule anymore and the Imperātōr would be where the main army is. It was actually the bigest problem in Rome that they had no laws of sucession since Augustus didnt want to admit that he was king and the republic was gone, had the romans adopted a system of the emporor adopting an heir eliminating most civil wars the Empire might have never fallen and history would have been soo different.
Suggestion: What if Harold godwinson defeated William at hastings?
someone covered this, William would have defeated Harold Godwinson. Norman Conquest was likely inevitable.
@@BlazingFlame69 Why would that happen?
Great video! Love the topic and I think you added alot of detail that is important in analysing the persian roman rivalry that can be sometimes lacking in other videos. Keep up the good work!
Crassus's head is said (Plutarch I think) to have been sent to the Armenian capital Artaxata where a wedding celebration between an Armenian princess and a Parthian prince was going on and as part of the festivities a Greek play "The Bacchae" of Euripides was being performed and the head was used as a prop in the play which is about how the female devotees of the god Dionysus(Bacchus) became so frenzied when their female only rites were spied on by a man that they tore him to bits in rage. This story also proves that the educated elites of both Armenia and Parthia were familiar with Greek culture thanks to hellenization after Alexander's conquests.
Alexander the great is sometimes called the last Achamenid because his civilian administration of the Empire relying on colaborators incorperated so much persian way of doing things, it was only the army which remained solidly macedonian having a phalangist core rather than a cavlarly one.
0:08 never seen a map that distorted before.. makes rome seem 5 times the size of the parthian empire while in reality it's not much larger at all
If think it’s still something like 1.8x
That was because it was. Rome ruled most of Western Europe and the Mediterranean. At its height, something like 25% or more of the world population lived and died in its borders. Only China was as massive. Parthia was mostly just Iran and Iraq today and had a fraction of the population.
@@volbound1700 You talk about Iran as if it's small. Do you realize it is larger then France, Spain and Italy combined?
@@ustedesustedthe Parthian and Sassanid empires were huge. Near 800,000 sq mi
Yes that map may be based on the Mercator projection, it's completely flawed, Europe in its entirety is barely the size of South Asia
The title should be Why Sassanids didn't conquer Rome during the reign of Khosrow II
11:20 Did you say Greco-Persian rule of the Parthians??! It doesn't make any sense. You actually introduced the Parthian dynastie as half-Greek and half-Iranian, while you know better that they were an Iranian tribe. Don’t name my people and their empires as others please. Their interest in Greek culture does not make them and their empire Greek, just as Alexander's Persianization does not make Alexander and his empire Persian.
Ayval… this is the truth
As you correctly say the parthian empire was not a direct continuation of the Seleucid greek colonial empire but rather a native persian empire that even arose out of a nativist desire to topple greek colonial rule and bring back the glory of the former Archaemenid empire. Yet again in a sense the parthian empire was still an indoeuropean empire and probably even more so than both the archaemenid and the sassanian empire, whose rulers came from Persis (Fars). Since the parthians were actually not persians but a tribe of the Scythians from the north. So not such a huge difference between being ruled by greeks ot scythians in both cases you are ruled by europeans not self rule. Only difference is probably that the parthians much like the Alans were still a branch of persian speaking peoples probably a little closer to their culture than greeks...
@@zabooza74 Absolutely wrong!!! The Parthian were not a European rule over the Iranians, they were Iranian themselves, and of course a new and evolved branch of the Scythians as well. But the question that arises here is, what tribe are the Scythians themselves? They were also an Iranian people. Of course, some branches of them migrated to Europe and modern Russia, but they were ethnically Iranian.
The Scythians were Iranian tribes, from the nomadic Aryan people, who geographically reached from the north to the southern plains of Siberia, from the south to the Caspian Sea to Central Asia, from the east to the Sinkian region to China, and from the west to the Danube River. The Scythians were Iranian both racially and linguistically, and they themselves were divided into different tribes such as Scythians, Dahe, Massagets, Amirgians, and even new and evolved tribes wich the Parthians and Sarmatians were one of theme.I don't want to make fun of anything, but your comment was one of the weirdest I've ever seen.
@@CyrusPersia-wv7zo Actually not the Scythians were closer to the Huns there is lots of scholarship on this apart from weird iranian supremacist circles...
@@zabooza74 I have no idea on this matter, as there are many branches of the Scythians, each forming new groups in their own way, such as the mixture of Scythians and Slavic peoples in Russia, which led to a specific group in the Russian region i guess. There are many theories about their branches, but regarding the Scythians themselves as ethnically, what is confirmed by all is that they were Eastern Iranic pple. The Scythians I referred to were evolved Iranians and are considered part of Iran's history, including the Parthians. So no, the rule of the Parthians has nothing to do with the Europeans, and it was an Iranian rule, a very clear and confirmed thing.
Could you make a video on why the reasons why the Arab-Byzantine border remained static for 300 years?
Love the quality information and art choices and presentation.
The Armenians were such a large factor of the dynamics between Persia and Rome. Now I'm curious what was different during the earlier times of Alexander and his successors.
Kings and Generals has a playlist about Alexanders conquests and the wars of the Diodoci. Armenia was prity irrlevent.
00:16 Bro's been doing squats
Lol😂
Man this is an interesting topic and well researched but the slide show thing doesn’t work on RUclips as it’s tough to pick up the details on the slide text and listen and take in images all at once!
Keep it up man
Thanks for the praise and the feedback. I think I'll try the same style but with slower visual pacing, and simplified text for starters.
good video, it's something I often wondered myself
Phil's background looks like a gamestop showcase.
but overall, it was a great video, especially the last part with the examples where you thoroughly analyzed the issues across different periods. Just please be careful with the way you express certain things, because a mistake in wording can give a different meaning to the sentence. Thank you for your video.
I sure hope no Iranian nationalists will pop up out of nowhere. . .
Hi I'm persian myself and love history
I don't see why they would be upset? Rome was a far stronger power than Macedon and yet couldn't conquer Persia as Alexander had done. Giving credence to the fact that the Parthian Empire was stronger than its predecessors.
Knock Knock
Why you are so upset what we did to you it was romans who came to our gates not us
@@robertalaverdov8147 I think it was more about desire with Rome. In the Parthian era, the region was just not that valuable. By the Sassanid area when it was organized, Rome was likely too weak to achieve the conquest. There were a few attempts: Trajan, Caracella, and Julian. However, even with those attempts, they seem half baked.
9:53 Partians didnt do shock and awe, that was for the later sasanids.
Partian armies where 90% horse archer 10% catapract, to the sassanids 10% horse archer 90% catapract, theres a reasin in Age of Empires II partian tactics improoves your horse archers. Partians fought in the tactic I would call the caracole, where you dont engage the enemy steel in hand in mele combat and run them down with your heavy cavalry, but rather ride in circles infront of the enemy or arround the enemy and shower them with arrows till they are pincushons.
In modern doctrine terms the partians relied on overwhelming firepower, altho there is no such thing as overwhelming firepower before cannons.
1:33 Correction : Andragoras was actually of Iranian origin
This name is just a Greek translation of his original name
I get the logistics of not invading Persia but still surprised it didn't happen with Rome considering Persia and Mesopotamia were both part of Alexander's Empire and Hellenized.
Because the internal problems of the Roman empire did not allow them to have a successful campaign to Persia, and of course the Parthian and Sassanid military and tactics were much more successful compared to the Achaemenids. One of the important tactics that played a key role was guerrilla warfare, which means a battle of attrition. With this tactic, the Persians could succeed even with a third of the Roman army.
Also, an interesting point about the Hellenistic period that you may not know. We know this period as Hellenism, but the period of Hellenism itself was a cultural evolution between Hellenic culture and other cultures, which caused several forms of Hellenism to develop in every corner of the empire. For example, Seleucid Hellenism was different from Hellenism in Egypt. Many historians believe that the term "Hellenism" has a universal meaning and is not only related to Greek cylture.
Ms. Amélie Kuhrt and Dr. Susan Sherwin White have written a book called "From Samarkhand to Sardis" which is related to the Seleucid period, and this book is known by other researchers as "a new vision of the Seleucid Empire". In this book, they had tried to place the Seleucid kingdom in the zone of Asia and the East, and many of the sources they have shown are from Mesopotamia and Iranic itself, which shows that not all sources are in Greek. And it is possible to have a different view from the first Seleucus to the last king of the Seleucids, Antiochus VIII, who are rulers who speak Greek, but at the same time have an Iranian and Mesopotamian tradition. We should not have the wrong view that this is a cultural invasion by the Greeks or Iranians, but rather a cultural evolution took place between them. I recommend that book to you
they weren't hellenized
so called persia was occupied by Central Asian nomads, as it kept happening again and again in history. so there were persia at that time.
@@someonefromdesert If by "central nomads" you mean the Seljuks, Mongols and Timurids, you are right,
but if you mean the nomad such as Parthians, Safavids, and Afsharians, you are wrong!!
@@CyrusPersia-wv7zo Why are turks claiming afsharian?? it sounds nothing like turkic names
What if the swedish won the great Northern war
Btw amazing video, keep up the great work
Love your content! Thanks For this! 🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥
00:08 This map is not accurate in terms of size. You can search for an accurate Persian/Roman map to see the BIG difference. Persia, during the Parthian Empire period, reached 2,800,000 km² at its largest extent, and Rome reached 5,000,000 km² at its largest extent. Even if we compare the largest state of Rome to the smallest state of Persia, Persia is still much larger than what we see on ur map.
Love the brat reference. Funny, but will also date the video in the future. Not a bad thing in my opinion; makes it easy for people in the future to tell the cultural influences at the time of this video’s creation
true, same thought process i had when choosing to do it lol
Damn good video
You missed the main reason, and thats the Iranian Identity, people in Iran had a national identity for over thousand of year, that survived multiple occupations, every time Iran was occupied people revolted and kicked out the invaders directly or indirectly by cultural assimilation
If I could travel back in time to visit any city of the past it would be dependant on if Im a ghost observer or if I am there as my flesh and blood real self. As a ghost observer Id like to see Rome when it was still capitol of the Empire with all its monuments intacked. As my real flesh and blood self Id like to see Rīgu in the early 30s, that is when our capitol was most latviska in all of history, Id be very interested in conversing with the people to feel the pulse of the nation.
@@baltulielkungsgunarsmiezis9714 who cares.
@@jacobjonm0511 Historys Influence asked.
you deserve more subs sir
The proper question is why iran couldn’t conquer rome
Another advantage the Parthian's/Sassanid's had was that the Roman Empire had aassive border they had to control and the fact the Romans spent a lot of those military resources killing each other since they mever fully established what gave Emporer's legitimacy. If they dedicated a massive force to Invade Persia that wpuld definitely leave gaps on their already extended borders. And then imagine if something went foul. That wpuld require even more military resources from an already strained border. Realistically what the Romans prob should've done(in my opinion) is continue thier pushes into Germania and Dacia. Theu definitely could've consolidated a border albeit over not profitable lands. Same with the Picts. They had significant forces in Britain to fight back Pictish/Caledonian incursions when they damn near annexed the entire region before. Having a bit of short term dedication to Britain and Germania would've long term drastically shortened the Border they had to extensively defend leaving more troops for the Persian/Arab/Scythian Border. North Africa was another massive border they had to Garrison from the Saharan opposition. Not much they realistically could've done about that one though.
Rome was a duplicate copy of the Persians. It's eagle standard was basically a rip-off of the Fravashi symbol.
It's impossible for the son to "conquer" his father.
who is telling you this crap lmao. Rome was a copy of the Hellenic world.
@@KrypteiaXi
That makes it a Level-2 copy of the Iranians.
@@parjanyashukla176 Iran was a copy of the Akkadians.
We wuz...
@@Alex-tx2em
Iran was the same country as Northern India till 1,000 BCE.
@14:11 is not entirely accurate. The Romans and Persians fought over religion prior (just not as much as a focus). Byzantines/Romans often citing protection of Christians in Persia as a cause of war and in the treaties.
Alexander: Hold my beer 🍺
Alexander was Greek, here is about the Romans. Although even Alexander and his successors did not manage to keep all of Iran after his conquest!!!
@@CyrusPersia-wv7zo I know, it's a joke. There was never another Alexander. He was lightning is a bottle.
Would be interesting if that rivalry was Macedonian Empire VS Rome instead of Persia VS Rome imo
You could do a scenario on that; What if the Macedonian Empire survived?
I'd love to do an Alexander the Great timeline in the future. I may not be Greek myself but I share your interest on the topic haha.
If it was the case, the Macedonians were undoubtedly defeated by the Romans, just as they were later defeated by the Parthians during the Seleucid period. Only the Parthians and the Sassanids could face the great Roman power, not even Alexander could stand against Rome.
Issue with Macedon is that they were their own worse enemies. If you don't have the Diadochii wars, they might have survived. Even up until Rome's fall, they were fighting themselves (Rome had a similar issue).
The Parthians were lucky because Trajan died of sickness, and the Sasanids were lucky because Rome was in crisis
Italians are Germanic/Nordic peoples.
Geneticamente, anche, in parte. Ma culturalmente siamo Latini, Romani. La nostra lingua, la nostra religione, le nostre usanze sono molto, ma molto più latine che germaniche anche qui nel Nord Italia.
3:57 reverses? The ERs in the end edged out the Sassanids.
They don’t have Alexander
I am sure that even if Alexander was in that period with his entire army, and if he had faced Surena with his 10,000 Parthian archers, the same fate as Crassus would have awaited him. The Parthians’ military tactic was a guerrilla tactic (meaning attritional warfare). With this tactic, the Parthians and Persians could fight for hours with a small number of troops and ultimately emerge victorious!!
Because they needed more cavalry in that type of terrain.
Repeating the same old argument that achamenid of late 4th century was weak. How? Your reasoning is that Egypt was just reconquered. Well by that logic many balkan tribes and greek city states that had rose up in revolt had just been reconquered by Alexander does tgat mean macedonian hegemony was weak?
Achamenid army was able to break phalanx at issus and cause massive casualties.
Achamenid were riding high with their recent reconquest and had undertaken military reforms which made the army formidable than it had been under cyrus or darius.
Post Peloponnesean war persia was the true politicianaster
Based on the Parthian coins, some records and also Shapur I inscriptions, both Parthians and Sassanids had larger borders in the east
You mean other than “holy fuck look at that completely untenable map”
The map says they need the medditerranean water💧 🙄
Why Persia and the Medes never conquered Europe. And why the Moors and the Turks also failed. Until now that is.
cope
Europe is conquering itself using immigration as a weapon. They've given the world (except Russians) a greenlight through inaction. I don't think it's their fault, I would too if I didn't live in the US.
The Romans plundered their capitals dozens of times, but not the other way around. The Parthians never even came near the Greece.
@@cubbelicommando And the Persian hater Turk with 1,000 fake accounts appears again 🤣
@@cubbelicommando Pre islamic Iranian empires (except Medians) had several capitals around the empire
The Parthians had 7 different capitals with 4 or 5 of them being beyond Zagros mountains and outside Mesopotamia
The sack of Ctesiphon barely even mattered to them
The capital that was sacked was one or two cities away from the eastern borders of Rome
It was sacked whenever there wasn't any army there or the empire was in civil war or during the reign of a weak king such as Osroes I (a usurper)
Look at the states of the Parthians and the Sassanid when Trajan and Carus attacked
Their empire was literally divided in two with the western parts of it being seized by a usurper king called Osroes I (same guy who provoked Trajan to attack) and the east was taken by a Kushan king while the Shahanshah wasn't present during Carus invasion
@@cubbelicommando The Turkish keyboard warrior hater with 1,000 fake accounts appears again 🤣
@@cubbelicommando Take a look at where Parthia was and then take a look at how far Italy is
Actually they did come near Greece right before Ventidius campaigns
@@cubbelicommando Be a man instead of hiding behind fake accounts 😂
Everyone knows it's you Papaz 😂
No matter how many fake accounts you are using 😂
The way you comment gives you away for everyone 😂
Short Answer: Too Far Away
They never really had a all out war like they did with Carthage.
Alexander never lost a battle? I thought he lost the India campaigne.
Should a history channel pronounce names the way they were pronounced or how modern day people pronounce them?
Nothing but a better war story than the love story saga of Twilight X))
First. Nice vid btw.
Now tell me how evil I am.😅
Simple answer is logistics. Rome, Parthia, India and China never could have conquered one another because of the limits of logistics. I guess if Rome AND Parthia pooled an invasion of India they could pull it off, but trying to manage affairs from the British Isles to the Indian subcontinent at that time would have been too much for any army of bureaucrats.
While I see that, Alexander the Great (with less resources) took the East despite the logistical strain. I think it was more desire, Rome just didn't care. By the Sassanid time, though, Persia could have held off Rome.
They couldn't pull an invasion on India.
Alexander retreated from India after failed campaign, Hun were driven out from India,India survived against the Arab Caliphate campaigns for 500yrs(which Rome & Persia couldn't survive)
@@akhripasta2670 India wasn't a nation, but rather a collection of nations or entire region. The Arabs did successfully conquer most of India with the Mughals later. Alexander didn't necessarily get beat, his men wanted to go home. His successors preferred to negotiate with the rising Mauryan Empire which was a powerful Indian state that emerged after Alexander's death.
@volbound1700
The video on this topic is during the Gupta Empire and it's vassal Vakataka also known as Gupta Vakataka age🥴
"His successor negotiated"😂
Alexander's successor lost & had to secede Gandhara & Gedrosia
@@akhripasta2670 They definitely didn't win in battle but his successors were also fighting other successors. Seleucus I (who negotiated) had to also fight Antigonas in the West and it was seen as more important of a fight than some frontier provinces. India was always seen as remote and less important than the core of Alexander's Empire in the Middle East. Not to take anything away from the Mauryans. Seleucus got over 300 War Elephants from Mauryans to win the Battle of Ipsus in Turkey over Antigonas and founded the Seleucid Empire.
Because Ventidius got pulled back to Rome and assassinated. If Marc Antony won the civil war, or maybe if Ventidius was on Octavian's side and survived, Rome with 'ventidian' legions would demolish Persia and all other enemies and should just continue spreading for centuries.
Ventidius reformed the middle Roman legion in a way that made it totally overpowered. It was already overpowered, the scutum gladius testudo legion was already virtually immune to ranged enemies, and inherently superior to any infantry or light cavalry on the opposite side. It's only weakness was mid to heavy cavalry. Romans didn't really have a solution to that except relying on increasing their own auxilia cavalry to counter it. That's how they turned around the Punic wars, that's how they handled the Gaulish and Germanic tribes, that's how they countered the Seleucids, and also of course the Parthians. Until Ventidius. He had the idea of making all auxilia be slingers, ditch the archers, the cavalries etc, just make them all slingers and organize logistics so that that they all have bunch of lead ammo. Because the (mid to) heavy cavalry - the only weakness of the legion - is immune to arrows, but it is very much vulnerable to slings. The sharp tip of the arrow will bounce off, but the blunt force of the sling bullets just transfers through the armor and break skulls and other bones.
So 'ventidian' legion is a very simple thing, just two types of soldiers, both on foot - legionaries and slingers. And this proved to be superbly efficient, the ventidian legions made huge victories over Parthians. But unfortunately, Ventidius, in the midst of being celebrated as a great victor over the Parthians, gets assassinated, disappears from history, his side loses the civil war, and his invention gets forgotten. The winning side instead continues the army policy in the direction of increasing the cavalry, scutum gladius and testudo all relatively quickly disappear, so does the legion system. The result of these later Roman army changes is the Byzantine army, which is almost nothing like the middle Rome army, and much more like the Parthian (and Sassanid) army, because that's what they thought you need to have (and have lots of) in order to win - heavy cavalry. Ventidius showed otherwise, but was unfortunately forgotten, as was his military invention of the supreme pre-modern army type.
Rome did not conquer Persia but they did take their capital multiple times. The first time was during emperor Trajan when they captured both Babylon and ctesiphon but Trajan died due to a stroke and the empire immediately once again went into a succession crisis between Hadrian and others. It was Hadrian who decided that is it worth civilising the middle east or consolidating it? Which was not possible considering Persian culture was vastly different and Hadrian had to consolidate the vast empire that Trajan left him. The second time was during emperor gallienus during the crisis of the third century where the emperor valerion was captured by the sassanids and taken to their capital by Shapur I to be humiliated and tortured after valerion responded to raids by the Persians during crisis in the Roman Empire. When valerion died, his corpse was hung as a trophy and the Persians once again carried out raids in the Levant and even Egypt to which the Roman governor of Syria odenathus responded by raising an army as the main Roman army was busy fighting barbarians. Odenathus although was not successful in taking the city, he did destroy it to the point of no return and restore the territories. Rome could have conquered Persia multiple times but it would have been pointless as the Roman empire was already too spread out or faced internal problems. In short Rome captured Ctesiphon five times-
116-117 AD Trajan and Hadrian
164 AD Avidius Cassius captured it but had to leave ctesiphon when a new peace agreement was made
197 AD Septimus Severus sacked ctesiphon and sold all its remaining inhabitants to slavery
393 AD Emperor Julian captured it but died due to his wounds and his army got bored and left.
The exaggeration of the importance of the conquest of the city of Ctesiphon was only a type of Roman propaganda. In fact, the Persians and Parthians did not have only one capital, but Ctesiphon was the closest to the Roman border. As important as the conquest of this city by the Romans was, the Persians also conquered the city of Antioch many times, with the difference that they did not use propaganda like the Romans did. However, in practice, it had the same meaning for the Romans as the conquest of Ctesiphon had for the Persians. Without considering issues such as the capture of Roman flags by the Parthians, the capture of the Roman emperor by the Sassanids, the deaths of Roman emperors such as Gordianus and Julian, the conquests of the city of Antioch, and the payment of tributes to the Persians in different periods, imagine if the Persians had also engaged in propaganda as the Romans did. What do you think would have happened?
@@faraz8135 what an insane cope, Ctesiphon was literally their capital since the emergence of the parthian empire and remained so for 800 years till the Arabs wiped it out. When the Arabs conquered ctesiphon, zoroastrianism literally went to a small minority still salty about Christianity and Islam. It's not an exaggeration that ctesiphon was not only the capital but also the seat of many Persian Empires. The reason they kept running away from ctesiphon and kept another capital near India was because the Persians kept losing and attacked whenever Rome faced a crisis or a civil war, Antioch was not even a Roman capital but only the capital of Syria palestina where the governer usually resided. The proof of victory for Rome is that Rome captured Ctesiphon multiple times but the Persians could never capture Constantinople nor Rome even once. Christianity still survives and rules the world while zoroastrianism is wallowing at the fringes that is the proof that Rome won.
@@sangumlinggi8330 Brah!!! your comments are lacking in logic. When you don't have information about the Persian imperial system, why do you comment on it? The existence of several capitals has nothing to do with your illogical claim. The Persians, Parthians, and even the Medes always had multiple capitals. For example, during the Achaemenid period, the Persian capitals were Ecbatana, Persepolis, Babylon, and Susa. During the Parthian period, they were Ctesiphon, Seleucia, and Susa. During the Sassanian period, they were Ctesiphon, Estakhr, and Bishapur. According to their tradition, Iranian kings had several capitals in different seasons and moved between them. Antioch was also part of the eastern province capitals of the Roman Empire and was an important city for them, just as Ctesiphon was for the Persians. And how do you expect the Persians to conquer Rome when Rome is kilometers away from the borders of Persia, while Ctesiphon is no fare of the neighboring of the Roman Empire? Have you ever seen a geographical map? Do you even know where Ctesiphon and Rome are located? Think a little logically boy!!!
It is also true that the Romans always had many internal problems, and civil wars. However, the Persians could defeat them at any point and didn’t necessarily need to wait for their internal issues. In many cases, the Persians were even one of the reasons for Rome's civil wars and instability, such as the events that occurred after the battles of Carrhae, Edessa, and Mark Antony's campaign following their defeat.
+ We can clearly see the victories of the Persians and Parthians even during periods of internal order and stability in Rome, including times when Iran was embroiled in civil war but still managed to defeat the Romans. An great example is the last Parthian king, Artabanus V, who was defeated by Ardashir of Sassanid, but before that, he managed to defeat the Romans one for last time in the Parthians period. Com out of your fantasy bro!!!
My last point about your comment about Zoroastrianism. Zoroastrianism still exists, in small numbers but still alive. And its influence can be seen in the modern world, even in Christianity itself. Many Christian traditions have Zoroastrian and Mithraic roots, both of these are Iranian religions. Additionally, for your general information, Christianity did not originate in Rome and is not a Roman religion.
Trajan and Septimus Severus conquered Mesopotamia!
*_Why not ask the other way round? Why couldn't or WOULDN'T the Aryans conquer Rome?_*
I think it’s because Rome is like 1800s uk
Only successful because of tech advantage
Because Caesar was assassinated before he had his chance.
Dislike cuz i dont like the term stolen for Roman legion standards. They won the battle thus a right all they had
Simple....they didn't have the ability to.
τι θα πει αντιοχος? αστο θα χαλαστουμε
Alexander never counqerd the whole Persia
just the lower parts
1.5 playback speed 👌
An unconquerable rival. The 🇺🇸🤝🇷🇺
First of d****SS. We Romans were not trying to conquer Persian or Persia. We were just defending our home. We were just defending Europe and Rome. They had attacked us first. Like everyone else...
I think is that they get lazy
Based
For me its more like why did Iran not conquer Rome? 😂
16:01 A RUclips Channel has this as a channel logo & pfp
Good content to follow if anyone enjoys Chinese Three Kingdoms history and some other gameplay related to Total War and other big or occasionally indie titles!
7:24 Thirster than an only fans subscriber😂. Ok, that's funny.
Romans when fighting against de-centralized, savage tribal nations: lmao for the glory of Rome. We are superior!!!11!!1
Romans when fighting against centralized, developed states: WELL IT'S JUST BEYOND OUR SUPPLY LINES AND LOGISTICS. Even though Greece and Anatolia are practically right next door...
Alexander conquered it in 10 years….. Rome was always in constant civil war, + Persia only got to Constantinople and failed the siege, while Rome sacked Persias capital Cstephion 5 times, and won 11 wars, while Persia won 8…..
Don’t forget Heraclius stomped Perisa SO hard defeating 4 different Perisan armies while being surrounded IN Persia…. Left them so weak after the war that Perisa was completely islamified by the Arabs in the 7th century, while Rome went on until 1453, Rome still exists as a city too, and is undoubtedly one of the reasons for the Wests supremacy over the world.
I dont understand your second sentence. Greece and Anatolia WERE conquered. The Romans actually even fought with the Greeks while at the same team dealing with Hannibal.
@@pantheon3671 Rome was usually in civil war when an emperor died, the strongest general took over beating the rest.
Perisa took Anatolia for a little and then lost when they reached Constantinople.
Rome while in civil war, and foreign wars still endured and sacked Perisas capital 5 times and its religious one…… not to mention Rome won 11 wars, and Persia 8.
@@pantheon3671 I'm saying that Anatolia and Greece are wealthy and rich land that is developed and could support their supply lines. Need food? There's Egypt.
@@Vntihero That's assuming the Persians also didn't have problems of their own, when they also fought others from their East. Also, they also had civil wars of their own, from Achaemenid to Parthian to Sassanid. It wasn't particularly peaceful in transitions.
I wish they had stopped faser
Cos the Persian flag is dangerous
They knew they were already overextended. Plain and a simple. And, it was probably wise of them to not attack them.
What if The Roman Empire Had invaded japan ?
How will the Romans even do that?
@@benetgamingchanel4055 if the Trojans went the other way and just kept on going or something lmao
They would have enjoyed anime and became weebs lol.
I know this is fiction but at least keep it a bit realistic
@@MsMommyMemer The Chinese might rather call Wa Dongdaqin (East Great Qin) then lmao
Iran,,,,,,, not Persia this is land of Aria not for specific group of Arian
It was oders come after persian there
@@Amen6magi there were some people before our persian ancestors like kasi people or burnt city of ilamian and ... there descendants still present in our lands .the word aria dosent mean the group of people that came from north it mean noble , and best of people. the land always was called home of aria or arianna-vaejeh(home of aria) as it is written in survived letters before savage ARABIC conquest.
cause iran was more powerful
It's not that they couldn't, it's that they didn't.
It would be like me saying Rome couldn't conquer Ireland. We fought them, we were on their border and they didn't conquer us.
Julius Caesar had planned an invasion of Parthia but senators murdered him shortly before he left to go on that campaign.
Augustus came after him and Augustus declared his desired "natural borders" for the Roman empire, based on geography. Such was his reputation that all of his successors followed it.
With the exceptions of Claudius + Agricola (in the time of Domitian's reign) conquering Britain, consolidating England + Wales.
And Trajan being forced to fight Decebalus (leader of Dacians around 105 AD) because he was building forts on his southern border with Rome when he had agreed with the Romans to built forts on his northern border to help keep enemies out, this happened twice. So Trajan's hand was forced and he took Dacia.
Then Trajan had a golden opportunity to invade Parthia, he did and it wasn't close, he took a lot, quickly.
But when Trajan died of sickness his desired heir (one of his generals) didn't get to inherit because his wife used her influence to make Hadrian heir.
Hadrian had some weird ideas, including giving back everything Trajan took from the Parthians and not fighting them.
Considering the Roman's had 60 Scorpia per legion and could include more, I don't think the horse archers in the dessert narrative makes it so Romans couldn't conquer Parthia, it's mainly they didn't go past the lines Augustus drew, and Augustus let a river be the border.
in fact, they wanted, but couldn't. They tried many times, but they didn't succeed. Some clear examples are the campaigns of Crassus, Caracalla, Severus Alexander and Julian. Conquering Iran has been the dream of every empire in history, because it is located in an important geopolitical region that connects Europe and Asia, and because of its natural resources and fertile lands for agriculture, as well as the wealth of the Sassanid and Parthian empires. What empire would not want to conquer such a jewel?
@@faraz8135 After Augustus, (the first Roman emperor) set our what he intended as Rome's natural borders, all following Emperors were heavily influence by that. So that's why.
Also Constantinople is where Europe connects with Asia, and the Roman's had it, they even made it their capital.
@@OrtonThimsbury So what was the reason for the numerous Roman campaigns in Mesopotamia and the conquest of Ctesiphon? If, as you say, the Romans were satisfied after establishing the borders of Rome and a specific border was agreed upon, then why did Trajan, even if only for a short period, refer to Mesopotamia as a new province of Rome? There is no doubt that if there had been the ability to advance further, it wouldn't have been far-fetched for them to conquer Iran as well, even though the campaigns of Alexander, Caracalla, and Julian came after Augustus and the idea you mentioned. Thus, the idea of conquering Iran and expanding eastward still existed for the Romans, which is a logical action for any empire. Also, geopolitically, Iran is located on the Silk Road, and we know that the Romans had a great need for Indian and Chinese goods, and these goods had to pass through Iran first to reach Rome. Apart from this, Iran itself had plenty of produce, both agriculturally and in spices, and most importantly, it was a constant threat to the eastern frontiers of the Roman Empire. Despite all this, do you still think that Rome never had the thought and dream of conquering Iran and never try for it?
@@faraz8135 I'm not saying they never had the thought or dream of it.
Trajan attacked because the Parthians got into a war with their eastern neighbor, and because roman society had recently been accepting of his addition of Dacia, which ended the post Augustus period of no additions other than Britain (Which Caesar had already been to to set up a precedent)
I think if Trajan's intended general heir had been the next emperor they would have sought to take more from the Parthians. But Hadrian had no intention to do so.
I can't recall when the next attempts at expansion into Parthian territory was but I acknowledge there was a point where the Parthians caused really big concern to the Romans, but that was not when the Romans were at their peak around Trajan's times.
I think Augustus had about 50 legions at the end of his civil war, he disbanded all but 28. Going by those numbers I don't think Parthia had much of a chance. Even if they were possibly the ones who would have put up the biggest fight.
I can't remember all the names of the leaders from back then, I remember a Parthian army had a successful campaign against the eastern provinces of Rome and were attacked by the leader of an oasis town on the way back, a smart leader who's wife went on to take Egypt from the Romans before being defeated by Aurelion.
Anyway, in that Period Rome couldn't take lands off Parthia, if they weren't Sassanids by then, I can't recall it's been awhile.
TLDR:
It seems like Parthia was Rome's most powerful neighbor but at the same time I think if Augustus let his 50 legions, or even his 28 legions do their terminus thing it would have been like Eren's rumbling for the rest of the world, even China.
@@OrtonThimsbury exactly👍
I said the same thing you just mentioned, no law can remain.Trajan ended Augustus' border policy, and then Hadrian reinstated it. In Roman governance, such implementation and revocation of laws occurred frequently. For example, laws and rights for Christians and Jews of the Empire. We know that during Valerian's reign, many Christians were captured, and Christianity was severely restricted in Rome. However, a few years later, during the time of Constantine the great, not only were more rights given to Christian residents, but this religion also became the official faith of the Empire. For this reason, such laws should not be taken seriously or considered eternal. In a period when the Romans believed that advancing into their eastern borders was possible, they pursued it, like during the era of Severus Alexander, which was at the beginning of the Sassanid rule. Alexander believed he could end this empire at its inception, but at other times, for various reasons when military campaigns or conquests were impossible for them, they enacted such laws.
Arabs did both lol
When both were weakened and pass their primes LOL
@@ramtin5152 nah they were at their prime
@@sowonkun Just because they had more soldiers, doesn't mean that they were at their prime LOL
Plus modern estimates don't agree with muslim sources over the numbers of Roman and Sassanid armies XD
Compare them with their actual prime like during the reigns of Shapur II, Khosrow Anushiravan, Justinian I and Maurice
Both empires were weakened by the time arabs started attacking
@@ramtin5152 they were stable and experienced at wars, yet they failed in 6 years
@@sowonkun That line alone proved me that you either didn't read anything about them or don't want to know about them LOL
They were anything but stable XD
Plus both sides had lost their experienced soldiers and commanders during their last war LOL
!
Son of khosrow and marya can be first padishah_emprore of dune
What if the Mongols conquered Byzantines
👍👍
👌👌
They could but it was more politically valuable to keep them as a boogieman.
Rome couldn't even conquer Germania .
Other questions is: "Why Could Persia NEVER Conquer Rome?"
Up until Byzantine era, Rome was significantly stronger than Persia. Pre-Byzantine era, the only chances they would have had is during the crisis of the 3rd Century but Palmyra waxed them.
You mean PARTHIA