Very impressed by him laying out what we know and don't know about this topic at the beginning. I feel that far too often historians who write for a general audience don't do that because they think it makes themselves sound less credible or something. I honestly think it makes you sound a lot more credible and wish more people in more fields would do this!
Parthians were Iranians, they just were not Persians, but definitely they were Iranians. I've never heard anyone contest that! Must have been a slip or something.
He's talking about the Arsacid family who were of Parni(Scythian) heritage, and thus would have been considered Aniran or non-Iranian but rather Turanian. Note that Turanian in this original definition did not mean Turks, but rather the nomadic East Iranics who inhabited the great steppe and were a constant enemy of the Iranians.
No they were not. Turkic speaking people started populating the Northwestern parts of Iranian plateau, Eastern Anatolia and Caucasus somewhere around 12 century AD.
@@ethdow6817, does your answer assume that Azeris do not descend from pre-Turkic people who lived in those areas before the arrival of the Turks? Are you assuming that Turks replaced people in those areas, as opposed to people adopting Turkic languages?
His *books* (plural), eh? Seeing as only one or maybe two even deal with the Roman-Parthian/Persian conflict, what would make those Iranists qualified to find all his books a joke? Methinks, the set of "iranists finding his books a joke" has one element: you. Who, I will go out on a limb, is not even an Iranist. Not even going to ask what a "romaboo" is, nor do I care.
I assume by "romaboo" you mean "pro-Rome" , in which case stop your paranoid whining and actually listen to what he says rather than what you assume he is saying.
@@Unknown-jt1jo Or, sadly, an actual Iranian who, depressed about the current state of their country, desperately longs for the days when "Persia Rule The World (tm)". You can possibly tell at which scenes in "300" they cheered or booed. 😆
Adrian Goldsworthy's knowledge of ANY period in history is staggering. Thanks for a great lecture.
Agreed!
Mr Goldsworthy is a Master of his profession. I find his teachins fascinating. His delivey is excellent, in my opinion.
My favorite historian.
Absolutely amazing thank you.
Preach it Goldsworthy, preach it!
Thank you Sir...!
Very impressed by him laying out what we know and don't know about this topic at the beginning. I feel that far too often historians who write for a general audience don't do that because they think it makes themselves sound less credible or something. I honestly think it makes you sound a lot more credible and wish more people in more fields would do this!
He previously wrote a book Rome and Persia……is this a different book?
Yes. This is his second book on the subject.
@@ethdow6817 No. Same book, different editions based on whether you're in the UK or US.
One book, two titles, I just checked on Wikipedia, very odd cause the titles don't seem radicaly different
@@RichardPhillips1066 It's not odd. Usually the titles are different based on whether you're in the UK or US.
What does Arabic tradition means? Please mention authors like Al Tabari
he should ve learnet armeniana and georgian to read these sources including syriac asswell they have good accounts on sassanians
And what are the titles of these texts?
@@Georgieastra church of the east anti chalcedonian church etc
@@Houthiandtheblowfish
Those are not titles of texts.
oh man no slideshow
Parthians were Iranians, they just were not Persians, but definitely they were Iranians. I've never heard anyone contest that! Must have been a slip or something.
He's talking about the Arsacid family who were of Parni(Scythian) heritage, and thus would have been considered Aniran or non-Iranian but rather Turanian. Note that Turanian in this original definition did not mean Turks, but rather the nomadic East Iranics who inhabited the great steppe and were a constant enemy of the Iranians.
I like Adrian but man does he need to swag up
Were the Azeris around during Armenia's kingdom?
No they were not. Turkic speaking people started populating the Northwestern parts of Iranian plateau, Eastern Anatolia and Caucasus somewhere around 12 century AD.
@@ethdow6817, does your answer assume that Azeris do not descend from pre-Turkic people who lived in those areas before the arrival of the Turks? Are you assuming that Turks replaced people in those areas, as opposed to people adopting Turkic languages?
The name of the country Azerbaijan derives from ancient Atropatene/Ātṛpātakāna
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atropatene
So, do Mr Goldsworthy and those who read his books also fall under that idiotic new "meme" about "thinking about the Roman Empire"? 🙄
pro Romon propaganda
Poo poo pee pee
Iranists find his books to be a joke.
Romaboo prattling.
His *books* (plural), eh? Seeing as only one or maybe two even deal with the Roman-Parthian/Persian conflict, what would make those Iranists qualified to find all his books a joke? Methinks, the set of "iranists finding his books a joke" has one element: you. Who, I will go out on a limb, is not even an Iranist. Not even going to ask what a "romaboo" is, nor do I care.
I assume by "romaboo" you mean "pro-Rome" , in which case stop your paranoid whining and actually listen to what he says rather than what you assume he is saying.
Says the “Iranist.”
@@michaelhoffmann2891 I assume the alleged "Iranist" is jealous of any historian who actually enjoys popular success.
@@Unknown-jt1jo Or, sadly, an actual Iranian who, depressed about the current state of their country, desperately longs for the days when "Persia Rule The World (tm)". You can possibly tell at which scenes in "300" they cheered or booed. 😆