8 ms·
Parthia: Rome's Ablest Competitor
- Ozumandias 7y agoI have to be careful reading articles like this. I have hundreds of hours logged in 2004's Rome Total War. All it takes is reading some interesting fact about Rome's military or one of their enemies and I can find myself losing a day or two in a new campaign. Even though the first Rome Total War came out 15 years ago, it is still the pinnacle of historical simulation video games to me. Simple yet endless replay value in trying out new tactics and strategies.
- namdnay 7y agoObligatory plug of the excellent "The History of Rome" podcast
- smogcutter 7y agoLove Mike Duncan! I’m going through his “Revolutions” podcast now and it’s terrific. Also worth mentioning Dan Carlin’s podcast about the Achaemenids, obviously about an earlier period of Iranian history than tfa but very good stuff. He covers a great deal more than the Greek wars, and in the west it’s a story we don’t usually hear told from the “other side”. Fwiw though I’ll take generally Mike Duncan over Carlin - Carlin’s a world class storyteller but imo he gets too caught up in hypotheticals and war stories. Duncan doesn’t have the quite the same “favorite professor” delivery but he covers things from more angles.
- mothsonasloth 7y agoAn Iranian friend of mine who is a history buff (but not qualified in it) says that the fall of Parthia to the Arab conquests was galvanised in Persian culture and is one of the driving factors of hostilities between modern day Iran and the Arabian peninsula. Since Iran then was then subsequently ruled by Caliphs, Turkish Sultans and then western rulers. There is an inferiority complex in Persian politics. It's an interesting thought, although I am not too sure how much bearing it has in reality.
- eternalban 7y agoParthians did not fall to Arabs. Either you misunderstood your friend or s/he is indeed "not qualified". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parthian_Empire https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parthian_Empire It was the 3rd Iranian empire (I do not consider Elam to be Iranian) that fell to the Arabs, the Sassanian: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sassanian_Empire https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sassanian_Empire To an extent, as an Iranian, it is partially true that post Sassanian, no other Iranian dynasty had command over the entirety of historic Iranian lands and boundaries. The last Iranian dynasty, the Pahlavi dynasty of the 20th century came closest. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Iranian_dynasties_and_countries#Direct_Iranian_dynasties https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Iranian_dynasties_and_... > There is an inferiority complex in Persian politics. I'm quite confident that mindset is a thing of the past. (Look at China.) Currently of course we are burdened with a regime that is polluting Iranian culture. But this too shall pass, God willing. [p.s. regarding other mis-statements]: > Since Iran then was then subsequently ruled by Caliphs, Turkish Sultans and then western rulers. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samanids https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samanids That's a pretty substantial piece of real estate, agreed? > western rulers. Possibly you are referring to the Pahlavi Shahs (?), in which case it important to point out that if the Shah of Iran was in fact a puppet of the West they would not have been so pleased to see him go. You may want to take a trip to Iran and ask the natives what are their feelings towards the Pahlavi dynasty these days ...
- mothsonasloth 7y agoThanks for the insight. Does the current regime like to draw on these historical periods to foment partriotism / nationalism? I am planning to visit Iran someday (Shiraz, Damavand and Ifshahan)
- dreen 7y agoImage dump of the article: https://i.imgur.com/jRs9P6V.jpg https://i.imgur.com/jRs9P6V.jpg
- farummi 7y agoYou are doing god's work.
- B1FF_PSUVM 7y agoThe Silk Road map image leads to a 2012 article about it: https://www.ancient.eu/image/146/the-silk-road/ https://www.ancient.eu/image/146/the-silk-road/ which in turn has a map image with better resolution: https://www.ancient.eu/uploads/images/146.png?v=1485680513 https://www.ancient.eu/uploads/images/146.png?v=1485680513
- eternalban 7y agoI would question that notion. Sassanians were quite capable. In fact, some Iranian historians consider them superior to Hakhamaneshian. I wonder if there persists a desire to forget about the Battle of Edessa? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Edessa https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Edessa
- swasheck 7y agosassanians were very capable, to be sure and, to be fair, though the article doesn't really specify the date, edessa and valerian were centuries later in rome's history, near the tail-end of the unified empire (30-ish years before diocletian). so i'm not sure there's a desire to forget about the battle of edessa, or the skinning of valerian - it's in the history, but the tone of the article seems to be regarding the threats to the emerging and established empire and not the crumbling one.
- eternalban 7y agoFair points all around. (I thought the skinning bit was debated?)
- swasheck 7y agoyou're absolutely correct. my apologies.
- sho 7y agoWhat a great domain name!
- RcouF1uZ4gsC 7y agoOne of the great "what-ifs" of history is that when Julius Caesar was assassinated, he was preparing for a campaign against the Parthian Empire. What if, Julius Caesar was not assassinated and was able to launch his invasion of Parthia. Julius Caesar was one of the greatest generals in history, and arguably Rome's best general (with the possible exception of Scipio Africanus). In addition, as evidenced by his visit to the tomb of Alexander the Great, he idolized Alexander, and I am sure would have loved to try to do what Alexander did in conquering Persia. Years later Trajan did figure out how to invade the Parthian capital city of Ctesiphon by moving columns down the Euphrates - so a successful invasion was possible. With Julius Caesar's assassination Rome fell into civil war. Mark Antony tried an invasion, but as history showed, he was not nearly the general Julius Caesar was. Julius's successor, Augustus, was not a military genius in any sense, and was too worried about his position in Rome to risk an invasion of Parthia, and was content just to get the Roman standards back that had been lost by Crassus. Subsequent history may have been a lot different if Julius Caesar had not been assassinated when he was.
- zozbot234 7y agoThere's actually something deeply weird about Caesar's assassination. He was well aware that folks were plotting against him, and was incredibly complacent about it all - this is something that ancient sources mention again and again, not just urban legend. You can read that as him just being fatalistic (which was incredibly common in the ancient world) but it's almost as if he willfully invited the whole thing.
- RcouF1uZ4gsC 7y agoI think Julius Caesar lived his whole life, believing (or at least acting) like he was invincible. He gets captured by pirates, and he incessantly demands they treat him with respect and that he is going to come back and crucify them. They don't kill him, and he later comes back and crucifies them. During his Gaul campaigns, he would regularly be in the thick of the fight, and several times came close to being killed. During mutinies, he would regularly go out among the mutinous soldiers without really a whole lot of protection and talk them down. He could have been easily killed during that time. So what we see as complacency or fatalism, may just be Julius Caesar acting like he always did. That strategy had worked his whole life, until at the end, it didn't.
- DerSaidin 7y agoThe story behind https://ageofempires.fandom.com/wiki/Parthian_Tactics https://ageofempires.fandom.com/wiki/Parthian_Tactics :)