Rome

>>1552837
Hey,
Hey,
Psst
Hey Rome.
Guess what?
>Cavalry
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

>>1552848
>Rome didn't have cavalry
Heh

>>1552848
I was under the impression that they had cavalry? I know that the legion foot soldier was their bread and butter... but they had cavalry, right?

>>1552858
It had.
Shitty ones at that,

They had inventions not available to those earlier civilizations, they were defintely miles ahead as far as siege engineering went. Roads also helped troop mobility in a world without internal combustion engines.

History is not a scoreboard.

The Roman genius is not in individual prowess, it's in making people soldiers, soldiers a well-oiled war machine, the war machine a series of strategic and tactical victories.

>>1552862
Shitty ones? In what way?
How hard can it be to ram a whole slew of horses into the ranks of foot soldiers? Seems pretty simple to me.

Rome bibliographies

Roman empire:
http://pastebin.com/ibgv0LH6

Roman army:
http://pastebin.com/iiyMSsDP

Roman cities:
http://pastebin.com/PN4dRtGe

Roman art:
http://pastebin.com/89cTwfpD

>>1552848
stayed home for the topography lesson did we?

>>1552837
Didn't greek phalanxes just fucking wreck the romans on plain field at least in the peninsular Roman times?
And conversely romans kicked their shit in on rough ground

>>1552837
The most powerful military on the planet ever is either the US/USSR objectively speaking.

I would include European colonial powers but they were at each other's necks so no.

>>1552872
I understand that their siege warfare was vastly superior to anything that had really been seen.
But, I am talking open field warfare.
How much more tech could they really have had in those few hundreds of years between various armies. I mean, swords and shields seem pretty continuous to me.
Additionally, i get that roads is a big part of what made the empire elite. But, seriously, how hard is it to put stones down to connect towns. If others hadn't done it, that just says a lot more about them as people.

>>1552889
Hence why I said in the ancient world. Obviously a good stockpile of nukes and one F-16 could take care of any ancient army.
similarly, Colonial powers had guns... hardly ancient warfare.

>>1552888
Do you have examples of this? What battles were either side "Wrecked"? Thanks

>>1552918
I guess I was thinking of Pyrrhic war
Quick look at wikipedia gave me battle of Asculum (greek victory) and battle of Beneventum (roman victory)
I'm not really that deep in roman history though

>>1552931
Interesting. Thank you for the battle names. I will look into them more.

>>1552837
>Did the Roman empire at it's height have the most powerful military on the planet in the ancient world?
Pretty much yeah. They had a fully professional army with top tier gear of a size comparable with the largest army of the time, which however was half made of conscript.
>Would the Romans have beaten any other great military in their prime as well? Xerxe's Persians? Alexander the Great's army?
Any previous ones, given same tier commanders? Sure.

>>1552908
Then its a pointless argument. Ancient powers - all of them- are at best, regional hegemons.

What is Roman military power to China? And vice versa? See?

>>1552862
>Shitty ones
Republican cavalry routinely defeated its opponents. The meme of them being bad comes from losing bad against more numerous opponents like at Canne.
Imperial cavalry was literally a mash up of the most celebrated cavalry forces of the period (north african and gaulish light horse and eastern cataphracts), so yeah.

>>1552862
>What are auxiliary units
>What are Equites cataphractarii
Every nation that had superior cavalry the Romans would beat, then establish auxiliary cavalrymen from that nation.

>>1552999
Actually, not so much... What was attempted was introducing vastly different tech.

>>1552888
>>1552931

look at the battle of Cynoscephalae

Romans could hold a phalanx down frontally but not defeat it, however, the Roman maniple was so flexible and mobile they just had to quickly get behind it and slaughter them.

>>1552848
>what are motherfucking cataphractoi

>>1552896
>I understand that their siege warfare was vastly superior to anything that had really been seen.
>But, I am talking open field warfare.
No, you don't get it.

You push them inside the cities where they think themselves safe, and let the siege machinery do the talking, then negotiate peace, then the locals find out they just have shut the fuck up, not rebel and pay tributes, and if they do they get to keep their religion and culture, and you actually protect the peace better than the former masters did.

And that's how you take over the world when there is no mass transportation, airplanes, contemporary national states (as opposed to loose collections of tribes), and nukes.

>seriously, how hard is it to put stones down to connect towns
No. Shit has to be invented, mastered, improved upon, and redesigned, and this species spent millennia without shit because it's hard to invent, and no matter how accostumed you are to living in the middle of the end-product version of the shit, it is not obvious.

It's hard and you need to think outside the box to come up with the shit, then prove it is applicable and successful in your present day.

>>1553431
All very good points.
It is true that Siege warfare dictated all other policy and types of war.
Additonally, good point about just because we are accustomed to something doesn't make it common sense.

>>1552837

Parthia fucked them up on a regular basis and kept them from expanding east.

>>1553476
I forgot to mention that divide and conquer was instrumental in getting the empire started and running smoothly.

Find the most friendly barbarians, aid them in taking over their rivals, promise them they will be chieftains or even local KANGZ.

Ultimately assimilate both friendly and enemy barbarians, because you have cultural as well as political hegemony, and all the cool kids want to learn your language and buy your things, you're the only superpower that can globalize its stuff in that location, etc.

But let me expand on why "roads aren't obvious."

Roads take a lot of work to make. They didn't have the machinery of today, which is very specialized in addition to using engines, asphalt and working quickly.

People need to be convinced that all this neverending labour is not a gigantic waste of time.

It's not just: "It would be nice if we had a road", somebody has to do the damn shit that brings it into existence, one stone after the other.

That, my friends, is hard.

>>1553506
What are some great examples of these divide and conquer methods that you allude to? I know from reading that a very prominent example is Aleric... but are there others?

Also, very good points about the roads. It does take work to make that feat possible as well.

>>1553533
Insubres and Boii, who are Gauls, rebel against the Roman Republic, for "some reason" Cenomani decide to join Rome and Veneti even though Cenomani are Gauls...

After the Battle of Pydna, Rome divides Macedonia in four republics.

Cue any Macedonian reporting his fellow Macedonian man for having anti-Roman sentiments.

Caesar loved it during is Gallic campaign, and even though Vercingetorix managed to bring all the remaining tribes under his banner it was too late. The man's practically synonymous with divide et impera.

Fun fact, even the nazis did it. They banned the communist party and the social democratic party with the help of the centre party and the national people's party. Then the nazis banned those two party as well and remained the only legal party left in Germany.

>>1552837
The Persian empire had armies of conscripted peasants. They relied on their professional immortals and chariots/elephants to do the job and the Romans could easily go toe to toe with the immortals and has a history of being able to take down elephants.

Alexander's army rrelied heavily on his phalanx holding down the enemy while his companions got the flank. The Romans faced similarly composed armies from the diadochi and crushed them.

>>1553501
Except Antony gave Parthia the big dick and recovered the golden eagles easily after Crassus fucked up in Carrhae, the Parthians fucking Rome up regularly is just a meme.

>>1553652
Are you getting your history from 300?

Slavery and conscription was outlawed in Persia and the immortals were the King's personal guard. There were only 10,000 of them, you're suggesting their entire professional army was 10,000 soldiers?

>>1553652
The Persian Army was raised Feudally. In addition this was attached with numerous armies of their subject peoples, and mercenaries.

>>1553533
Consider the fact that by the time of Hannibal, the Roman army consisted of about half Romans and half foederati/ mercenaries/ allies.
Infantry were generally a 50/50 split between Roman and allies, cavalry were closer to 80% being allies, and light infantry/ skirmishers were also largely pulled from non- Roman areas (such as the balearic islands).
Ergo, divide and conquer was essential to the Roman system of warfare, considering over half of their army was composed of allies.
Its also worthwhile to note that those outside the Roman empire were typically much more divided than you would think. Even if the Romans were fighting say the Franks (a confederation of Germanic tribes from the late period) there could also have been a good portion of Frankish auxiliaries on the Roman side as well, for various reasons. The tribes from say, the Franks, would have had less loyalty to being a Frank than they would have to the interests of their own tribe. This of course goes all the way back to those tribes in Gaul, Spain, wherever such as the Boii, Veneti, etc.
If you want an example, you can look towards the start of the 2nd Punic war. The war started not because Rome itself was directly attacked, but because Sagentum, a Roman ally, was. Further exaples are the starts to each of the Gallic wars. Caesar origionally came to Gaul at the request of an ally to stop the Helvetii from rampaging through their territory.
Forgive me as well if I butcher names here, its been a little while since I last read the Gaelic wars.

>>1552858
Roman born cavalry mainly harassed or chased routed enemies. Allied/auxiliary cavalry was usually better when it was from Celtic or Germanic tribes but they still sucked ass; see ERE's attempts to use Germanic/Gothic tribal horsemen against Persians.

>>1553014
I hope you don't seriously believe this.

>>1553664
No, he didn't. Antony had a failed expedition that got his legionary forces ass-reamed and forced to retreat back to Anatolia. Octavian/Augustus managed to make diplomatic overtures that got the eagles returned to the Romans.

>>1553664
>Antony gave Parthia the big dick
By failing his invasion, being betrayed by his Armenian allies, and getting OP horsemen Parthia pls nerf and sent running back to Rome which is what killed most of his popularity with the Senate and Optimates?

>>1553684
The Immortals were the professional standing army, which there was always at any given time employed and maintained as soldiers at exactly 10,000 in number. The Companions were exactly 1,000 men specifically making up the Great King's personal guard and private army.

They both used the best of scale armor available to them but the Companions operated as both horsemen and infantry; primarily as cavalry though and were heavier armed. It was also showing from after Xerxes I reign that the Persians were switching to more cavalry based tactics and formations and moving away from light/medium infantry.

>>1553696
They also appropriated militias and governor's household troops and satrap forces used for garrison duties. But this doesn't equate to how things worked under the Arsacids or Sassanid dynasties.

>>1553820
Well the Sassanids was also feudal. The Arsacids had this Nomadic Tribal Clan shit going on.

>>1553501
Parthia won most of its war against Rome due to intrigue and terrain. This is how most of Rome's major defeats happened. Enemy cleverly used terrain or confusion. Not that this discounts Parthian victories, not at all. But Parthia didn't beat Rome with a superior military.

>kept them from expanding east.
No. Rome didn't expand into east because, well, philosophical reasons. Romans after Augustus did not have any desire to expand into east, and saw Rome as the "Mediterranean empire". It quite literally was a philosophy of not expanding anymore. And true enough territorial gains after Augustus were negligible aside from Britannia.

>>1553843
The Sassanids and Arsacids were both incredibly feudalistic but the Sassanids were far more structured centrally and had much greater centralized power. They also had a rough equivalent to "professional" standing regular soldiers in the form of the Aztan aka "free men" caste operating as low level nobles who made up the entirety of Arsacid and Sassanid medium and heavy calvary and cataphract forces. The Arsacids were more dependent on the seven other Great Parthian Houses to bring in their vassals and could only really campaign during Spring or Summer seasons and not as well in the Winter or Fall.

And the Sassanids revived the concept of the original Immortals via the Zeydan Immortals; an entire elite cataphract force handpicked and commanded by the Great King or the Great King's heir/crown prince. They were reliant on other Iranian allies and the Armenians to provide more horsemen; in fact Armenians and Parthians got equal status with their Persian kin in Sassanid military and could get up to the highest ranks in the Sassanid military.

Its actually hilarious how similar Sassanid Persia is with middle age European kingdoms.

>>1553501
Parthia
>raids middle east, barely ever reach the med
Rome
>burn down parthian capital city 5 times

I'd say the one getting fucked up here is Parthia.

>>1553904
Rome
>Burn down Parthian capital
>Go home
>Army & Emperor get raped along the way.

>>1553913
Sassanids
>Burn down eastern Rome
>Go home
>Entire army wiped out by a city state

>>1553924
Well shit, not even a city state really.An autonomous Roman city.

>>1553913
If you're referring to Valerian, he fought against the sassanids, not parthians.

>>1553379
>He uses the greek name

HAHAHA STUPID BARBAROI! FEAR MY GREEK WARCRY AIAIAIAIAIAIAIAIAIAI!

>>1553904
>>1553913
>Rome
>start first two wars with Parthian Empire
>lose them despite it being a defensive war for the latter
>Trajan invades Parthian Empire
>military and economically cripples the Roman Empire forever by this being the last great Roman offensive attempt at conquest
>sack and capture Ctesiphon
>Trajan gets ill in Mesopotamia
>start suffering a massive series of counter-attacks; barely keeps a stalemate, Roman attempts to enter the Iranian plateau continually fail
>Trajan dies
>Hadrian takes over
>gives up everything
>Parthians harass retreating Roman forces, losing several more legions
>Bring a massive unknown disease back to Anatolia
>massive population loss as well as financial net-loss and manpower weakening from a pointless expedition
Sasuga Rome

>>1553924
>entire army wiped out by a city state
>Sassanids
When did this happen?

>>1553913
>mfw everything Trajan did was for naught but weaken Rome
>mfw departing Roman soldiers from Parthian lands brought some kind of disease that devestated like half the population of the urban Roman eastern holdings in the Levant, Balkans, and Anatolia
Was dying part of Trajan's master plan?

>>1553946
Saphur I attacked the Romans during the crisis of the third century and captured Valerian. After some looting and pillaging, he started returning home and his entire army was beaten by Odaenathus and an army consisting mainly of Palmyrene peasants.

>>1553942
>no mention of Cassius' ravaging of Mesopotamia and Ctesiphon
>no mention of Severus and Caracalla's victories
Biased much?
Besides, you can talk of Rome not gaining all you want. By virtue of Parthia getting rekt, they still got it worse.

>>1552837
No, there were more powerful militaries in china throughout romes entire existence

File: 1470360549982.png (656KB, 779x540px) Image search: [Google]

656KB, 779x540px

>>1553959
Of course!

>>1553973
Learn to read.

>>1553970
>his entire army
No, he lost a small part of his army and retreated. And in the long run letting it be a Roman internal affair helped Shapur's goal of weakening the Romans.

>>1553977
More powerful how? They had a doubtful size advantage, they were mostly conscripted, and they were hard to keep raised for a long time without starting famines.
The professional Han forces were certainly a match for the legions, but they were like a fourth in size.

Reminder that the Romans greatest advantage against Carthage and Hellenistic states was their massive manpower pool of Latins and Italic allies.

>Rome pulls out 40-50 000 men out of her ass for the first battle against Pyrrhus when they didn't even control all of Italy

>>1553977
No they weren't. Rome co-existed with Han China, which was weaker to Rome in almost all conceivable ways. Weaker production (iron, gold etc) and similar population. Roman military was also more advanced on basically all levels.

>>1553973
Cassius barely managed to reverse the Roman losses after that traitor Roman legion commander, Quintus, and Orseoes I's son, the prince/heir in standing, nearly took all of Roman's entirety of the Levant and Asia Minor and that was the only real offensive war ever made by the Arsacids on Roman territory.

>>1554005
Rome was struggling during the 2nd punic war though. After Cannae they had to extend the service age, reduce qualifications and allowed slaves to fight.

>>1554025
Actually whoops, was thinking of Ventidius there.

>>1553970
Its Shapur, not Saphur. And the defeat was not serious given he was still able to continue the same year into Roman Syria and raze several cities as well as steal Roman coin and money.

>>1554035
For all intents and purposes they lost the war in Italy, but won those in Spain and Northern Africa, the latter being the one that turned out to really matter the most.

>>1553998
>No, he lost a small part of his army and retreated
But my post didn't say he lost his entire army. I pointed out how his entire army was beaten. Which was very embarrassing.
>>1554050
You know you've triggered some Persiaboos when they start their argument by attacking a typo lol.

>>1554065
>For all intents and purposes they lost the war in Italy
How?
Hannibal crossed the Alps with two objectives: raise the italics in rebellion, and make Rome surrender.
He failed both.
Hannibal's success in Italy is grossly overstated, strategically speaking.

>>1554065
>For all intents and purposes they lost the war in Italy, but won those in Spain and Northern Africa
This is something you could say if the war ended with Hannibal controlling Italy, whereas in reality Hannibal was hunted down to the tip of the boot and kept there while his brothers got beheaded until he got recalled home.
I can't see how you could possibly argue for Carthage to have won the italian theather.

>>1554035
No shit Rome was struggling when they lost more soldiers then other nations population of men. And Rome didn't need to wait long after defeating Hannibal that they started more wars.

>>1554149
They never won a battle against Hannibal. Italy was decimated. Hundreds of thousands of lives lost. The consequences of the war in Italy were felt for a long time afterwards.

Hannibal was able to turn a solid number of Roman cities though. The Gauls of the Po plain had only a few years before succumbed to Roman power, only to come to the aid of Hannibal a few years later. In addition, the Romans lost their colonies in Gaul, and a good number of cities turned to Hannibal in Southern Italy.
It might indeed be a stretch to say that Carthage "won" the war in Italy, as they never accomplished their goals, true, but they were winning until Hannibal was recalled. Though Hannibal never fully achieved his aims, the war was by no means a win in Italy for the Romans.

>>1554218
>And Rome didn't need to wait long after defeating Hannibal that they started more wars.
Dude they started more wars while Hannibal was still in Italy. The romans were absolute madmen.

>>1554243
>Hannibal was able to turn a solid number of Roman cities though.
Hannibal turned basically no italics against Rome. Only greeks and gauls.

>They never won a battle against Hannibal.
>but they were winning until Hannibal was recalled
It's true that they never won an open battle against Hannibal, but that's because he maneuvered away from any clash he wasn't sure to win. That meant by the time he was recalled he had been forced to the literal tip of the boot, Calabria, unable to assist the reinforcements sent to him who got slaughtered upon landing in both attempts and losing every single city he conquered.
You can say Rome didn't win any pitched victories, but overall? Hannibal got BTFO.

>>1554244
the Romans had neverending manpower and constantly started wars while ignoring defeats. At the battle of Kallinikos where Perseus defeated the Roman expedition force he offered peace without demands and to pay the Romans indemnity. Instead Rome demanded unconditional surrender.
Rome is the AI in Paradox games that never surrenders and has bullshit bonuses.

>>1554074
Its not a typo when you completely fuck up his name.

>his entire army beaten
No proof of that, in fact both fragemntary Persian and Roman records indicate he defeated a small vanguard that linked up with one of the Persian garrison forces in Nisibis before they could be reinforced by Shapur.

And when he attempted to attack Ctesiphon itself, Odaenathus lost pretty badly. Given Romans themselves say he had to run back to his capital in flight and implying his army was routed decisively. Hell, its the principal reason or one of the main ones leading to his assassination.

>Persiaboos
I think you're just gripping sour grapes because the Persian-Roman Wars are the inverse of the Parthian-Roman Wars which lead to the Persians winning and invading more often then the Romans did.

>>1554276
>Hannibal turned basically no Italics against Rome. Only Greeks and Gauls.
Wrong, and a bold-faced lie if there ever was one in this thread. Capua was literally the second most populated, economically powerful, and major source of Latin manpower in the Roman Empire and they were turned against the Romans by Hannibal.

File: image.png (13KB, 528x424px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 528x424px

>Mfw Persia became a Rome client state under Trajan

>>1554334
Shit bait

File: 213423526525.jpg (209KB, 406x480px) Image search: [Google]

209KB, 406x480px

>>1554334
>Confusing Parthia with Persia
>mfw "client state" of Parthia lasted for less then a year
>mfw everything Trajan did failed to materialize permanently and Hadrian conceded original boundaries and territories back to Parthian Empire
>mfw only long standing real influence on the Parthian/Arsacid dynasty was that Trajan and Caracalla made it so the Sassanid Persian dynasty could become a BIGGER threat to Rome then the relatively passive Arsacids
Sasuga dumb frogposter

>>1554319
>I think you're just gripping sour grapes because the Persian-Roman Wars are the inverse of the Parthian-Roman Wars which lead to the Persians winning and invading more often then the Romans did.
False tho. The Sassanids were surely more successful than the parthians, but they still got threathened deep into their core lands every war while never managing to hit west of Anatolia.

File: image.jpg (17KB, 225x225px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 225x225px

>>1554343
>He (Trajan) deposed Osroes I and put his own puppet ruler Parthamaspates on the throne.

>>1554358
>literally less than a year

>>1554355
But was Mesopotamia a core land? I always thought the Persian plateau was from where their manpower came.

>>1554355
No they didn't. The Romans never managed to EVER get into Iranian hinterlands or the Iranian plateau, ever. Period. And were also heavily reliant on the Persians to deflect steppe tribals and barbarians from Eurasia and the Caucasus areas. And why the default Byzantine/ERE practice was "I really don't want to fight these guys, find out how much money we have and pay them to go away."

>>1554358
>less then a year

>>1554367
>>1554373
>But was Mesopotamia a core land?
Where exactly do you think their capital was? It's like asking whether Italy was a core land in the late roman empire when most of the troops were german.

Persiaboos in this thread:
>hahaha Rome succs, only managing to sack persian capitals and barely controlling the land for a few month, Persia clearly performed better by managing jackfuckingshit
You're embarrassing to read.

>>1554367
The only part of Mesopotamia that was tied populace wise to Iranians was Eastern Iraq with Ctesiphon. That's it. The Iranian plateau itself is where the majority of manpower for the Persians were coming from; Gilan/Daylam, Pars, Media, Atropatane, Susa, etc...

>>1554378
It wasn't. Ctesiphon was the royal capital, but its not part of ethnic Iranian territory. They inherited from the Arsacid dynasty, bucko. They retained their capital that close to Roman territory as a symbolic gesture of "Fuck you" to the Romans and Byzantines. We also know the majority of actual Iranian built Sassanid towns and cities are in Iran proper.

>>1554396
Shit baiting, dude.

File: image.jpg (13KB, 223x226px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 223x226px

>We got conquered and raped by Roman Bulls.... b-but it wasn't for long

>>1554403
Read the thread dude, it's not baiting it's literally what's going on in here.

>>1554396
Romans only captured Sassanid capital once that has been attested and verified. The only other attempt was never proven under a certain later Roman emperor and generally viewed as historical propaganda. The majority of sacks or captures on Ctesiphon were against the Arsacids/Parthian Empire, and by majority I mean every single success save one of them.

>>1554411
No, you read the current context about Persia and Parthia and stop with the strawmans.

>>1554397
>Ctesiphon was the royal capital, but its not part of ethnic Iranian territory.
Does it matter? It's where the roman armies needed to go to depose persian kings and impose peace between the two empires.

>>1554409
>he can't even rebuttal anymore and is just spamming shrektext oneliners
Literally you are that booty-blasted.

>>1554422
>he thinks there's just one dude arguing against persiaboo delusions in this thread

>>1554421
It does matter when you are caught lying considering the 5 of the 6 captures of Ctesiphon were against the Parthians and not the Persians and that the Romans/Byzantines never disposed a single Persian ruler.

>>1554428
>he
>>1554428
>>1554421
>>1554411
>>1554409
(You)

>>1554421
>Does it matter?
Yes, part of the thing about history is telling the truth and not lying. Just like how being a doctor means you have to explain the symptons of a disease or illness to a patient instead of just telling them the endgame of their sickness in the first place.
>It's where roman armies needed to go
Its where Roman armies typically lost, usually.
>depose persian kings
Go ahead and mention the Sassanid monarchs they deposed. I'm waiting.

>>1554444
>quads
>quad 4s
Checked

>>1554429
There's more of one poster arguing against you in this thread. I just said that Mesopotamia (where the Sassanid capital was) was a frequent battleground during the BYZ-SAS wars, which is true. The guy talking about Ctesiphon being conquered wasn't even referring to the sassanids specifically either as far as I can read, so you're actually strawmanning here.

>>1554421
It does considering you think a multinational multi-ethnic Parthian/Persian capital that served as solely an administrative and military headquarters and staging point for the grandees/Wuzargan was some kind of Persian military recruitment center.

>>1554452
No, there's just you against two or three of us and some guy whose shitposting.

>>1554444
>Its where Roman armies typically lost, usually.
Better than losing barely past the border like the persians almost invariably did.
>Go ahead and mention the Sassanid monarchs they deposed. I'm waiting.
Why only sassanids? Wanna start moving goalposts?

>>1554450
Reported for shitposting.

>>1554452
A strawman is making an attack on a false point your opponent never made in the first place. That is what you are doing, textbook definition to the letter here. I and the other guy explained Ctesiphon was just the capital city, not a "core" ethnic Iranian land. They even refer to the fucking province entirely as Asoristan, "Land of the Assyrians".

>Persia o-occupied Eygpt and eastern Anatolia from the BE before being counter invaded then completely cucked by Islam

>>1554462
>Persian military recruitment center
Are you retarded? Do you actually think that conquering the head of the snake is less relevant than subjugating the regions where the manpower comes from?

>>1554468
>lose Armenia several times
>lose most of the Caucasus
>lose Nsibis and Edessa repeatedly
Move the goal posts harder.

>Why only Sassanids?
Because the tangent, retard kun. You can't even debate on a single topic, why are you so dumb?

>>1554477
No, a strawman is you adding "ethnic iranian" to "core", just because you can't disprove that the capital city region isn't important to the empire.

I want shitposters to leave this thread so I can complain about Rome's massive manpower advantage against my precious Macedonians.

File: image.png (210KB, 327x316px) Image search: [Google]

210KB, 327x316px

>mfw persiaboos Worship Parthians which weren't even Persian

>>1554480
Will you ever understand that you're arguing against multiple individuals? You're trying to weasel your way past different arguments by crossing your answers.

>>1554479
Are you retarded? When did Rome ever conqueror Ctesiphon? Do you honestly think taking a symbolic capital is going to cowtow the Sassanian government or military? It never worked.

It seems you are this desperate you have no idea what you are talking.

>>1554486
That's not a strawman, you fucking moron. That's making a specific connotation so you wouldn't further try to make a fallacious attack by appending "core land" with whatever the fuck you want to define as core land when the root definition has always been urban centers for the Iranians and Iranics.

See you even made another fucking strawman by implying I'm saying Ctesiphon wasn't important, which I never said. You keep making false arguments because you are a dire moron who doesn't know fact from bullshit.

>>1554498
>It never worked.
It stopped the fucking wars. I'd say it worked.

>>1554478
>being counter invaded then completely cucked by Islam
It's not like Europe wasn't cucked by Christianity either.

>>1554494
>(You)ing this much
Sure thing dude.

>>1554494
>You're trying to weasel your way past different arguments?
What is he weaseling from? You were caught lying repeatedly on the Parthian issue, started shitposting about the Persians, then tried to redefine his arguments to something that was never stated or claimed so you could troll more. You are transparent.

>>1554477
>Ctesiphon was just the capital city, not a "core" ethnic Iranian land. They even refer to the fucking province entirely as Asoristan, "Land of the Assyrians".
Considering Cteisphon was the capital of Sassanian Empire, it most likely included a lot of travelling Persians (i.e., Iranians from Pars region). I wouldn't be surprised if Assyrians and Persians intermingled a lot.

>>1554506
Not really. Also I noticed you got quiet when you got blown out earlier on the claim that that Asoristan/Ctesiphon's home province was actual mainly populated by Mandeans and Assyrians, funny how that works.

>>1554522
That's because it doesn't fucking matter. You're the one fixated upon ethnic iranic lands here. People in this thread are trying to get you to understand the importance of the capital region of a country, where the government seat is, where the decision makers are.

Butthurt Assyrians are very annoying.

>>1554521
>Assyrians and Persians intermingled
No they didn't. One of the main Sassanid laws was there was no intermarriage with non-Aryans unless allowed by the King or the royal family.
>Ctesiphon was the capital of the Sassanid Empire
In Assyria, the main Persians and Iranic forces came from the Iranian plateau. A place where again I have to repeat, the Romans were never ever able to get to due the heavy concentrations of fortifications, garrisons, military bases and the natural boundaries of Alborz and Zargos mountains in the West.

>>1554532
>You're the one fixated upon ethnic lands
Which was stated from the get go.
>people
No, just (You) making things up as soon as you were repeatedly blown out of the thread when you were caught lying and shitposting.

>>1554532
It does matter because that was what he was stating and so was I. Ctesiphon was the administrative capital and where the King and the court resides, its important. But its not part of the fucking "core" Iranian lands as was explained to you repeatedly. Persians drew their military from their own peoples in Iran proper itself, not from the Levant or Mesopotamia. The only other people who supplied their military with troops were the Armenians who were in the Caucasus mountains and partially ranging into northeastern Anatolia.

>>1554537
How can Assyrians and Persians even tell each other apart? We look nearly identical.

I think that Sassanid law was just in regards to the royal family. I don't think they cared about lower-class peasants or whatever intermarrying.

>>1554508
>Persia invaded by Muslims then governed by foreign Muslims for centuries
>European kings converted peacefully besides a couple Saxons and Balts

File: fuck you.png (8KB, 857x138px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 857x138px

>>1554539
>No, just (You)
It's kinda bothersome how some other guy is having a debate with you and you use that fact to invalidate my posts too. Could you stop being a cunt?

>>1554554
>We look nearly identical.
If you are an ethnic Assyrian, you look like Iraqis to most people.
>I think the Sassanid law was just in regards to the royal family.
It wasn't, the Persians and other Iranians took race mixing pretty seriously. Regular freemen weren't allowed to intermix with non-Iranians, that was one of the things the Shah Nameh has from one of the surviving Sassanid texts on court and day to day affairs of Sassanid government that Ferdowsi used for his Book of Kings.

>>1554565
Wow, you took a screencap and edited out the (You) after 4+ minutes. Amazing! I can do the same thing in Chrome or Firefox in 10 seconds with line editing.

>>1554559
>centuries
>barely two hundred years
Also it tells how ass pained you are over the Persians that you're running to the whole "Muh Arabs cucked Persian" defense now. You are one very sad and patheitc little man.

>>1554567
Eh to be fair, most Assyrians were probably genetically assimilated by Iranians and other Semites but I think their closet to other Semites when it comes to maternal lineage from haplogroup placements.

Racial and cultural intermarriage seems to have been quite restrictive back during antiquity despite what multiculturalists like to rant. Historians used to believe that the Seleukids were a multicultural empire while modern historians say that with better examination of sources we can see that Greeks and Macedonians kept to themselves and service in the vaunted phalanx was restricted for all non-hellenes.

>>1554559
>foreign Muslims for centuries
Not really. Look up Samanid Empire.

>>1554591
Yep, though they did heavily favor catarphracts which I don't know if they were mainly supplied by Iranians or Greek/Macedonian colonials who operated as such themselves.

File: number-of-internet-arguments-ive-won[1].png (15KB, 528x434px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 528x434px

>>1554574
Ah well, if you're this obsessed there's no way to convince you you're talking with multiple people, you're just gonna keep using one guy's post against other people. Have fun debating that way.

>>1554601
(You) go ahead and keep telling yourself whatever sweet lies that help you feel better over the whole thing, my naive friend.

>>1554559
Different anon here: even though you are obviously very heavily trying to change the subject here to save face, the Arab Caliphates; primarily the Rashidun Caliphate and Umayyads, were in Iran for barely two hundred years and both failed at subjugating eastern Iran completely despite repeated invasions. Alsoi the Iranian intermezzo period is cited repeatedly by most Near Eastern historians and anthropologists as what broke the Abbassids and put them into decline even before the Turks should up to end them militarily permanently.

Also its ironic: Arabs defeat a weakened Persian Empire, and ultimately after about 500 years, are then in turned defeated indirectly by the Persians and their kin.

>>1553861
Military Intelligence is just part of winnig a war. Deceit, cleverness, and ruses are all just tactics. Just because it's not two groups of guys running at each other with sharp shit in their hands doesn't make it not part of warfare.

>>1554600
Mainly Greek and Macedonian colonists, the only Iranians allowed to serve were the Agema. The Agema was a 1000 strong royal cavalry regiment consisting of Iranian nobles. The Agema rode with the king alongside the Hetairoi regiment consisting of noble Macedonians and Greeks.

>>1553431
This. It's honestly rare for anyone to speak sense and not just talk outmofmtheir ass like they have it all figured out.

>>1554622
Tell me more about this Agema. If they were Persian and other Iranian nobles who "rode with the King" that would imply they were some kind of heavy shock force or major army of the Seleucid cavalry.

>>1554334
>>1554358
>>1554450
>>1554421
>>1554409
>>1554493
>high level discourse

>>1554334
>>1554358
>>1554409
>>1554450
>>1554493
End yourself.

File: image.jpg (24KB, 330x153px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 330x153px

>Be Persian
>get cucked by Greeks
>cucked by Romans
>cucked by Arabs
>cucked by Turks
>cucked by timur
>cucked by ottomans
>Russians
>Brits
>Americans

>>1554631
The Agema and Hetairoi provided 2000 cavalry that were armed at all times. Together with the 10 000 strong Silver Shields whom were the young sons of colonists the Seleukid kings had a strong field army for minor campaigns. If they needed more men for a bigger campaign the king simply called upon all the military settlers/colonists whom provided more phalangites and cavalry. There were also Thracian and Agrainian soldier settlers. Then the king would recruit mercenaries from all over the world. The notable ones would be Greeks, Thracians, Jews and Celts but also many easterners that served as skirmishers. The Macedonian (drop of Iranian blood) king would control the vast foreign kingdom with his Hellenic soldier settlers and working with native power structures such as the Babylonian priesthood. Natives were generally not recruited with exceptions due to the potential rebellions such as the ones in Egypt when the Ptolemaic kings Egyptians to provide extra soldiers.

>>1554662
Forgot to add "recruited" to the last sentence.

>>1554653
A unique Persian identity has existed throughout the ages. Our language was also preserved.

We were never cucked like the Egyptians.

>>1554683
Too bad Zoroastrianism was abandoned.

>>1554687
It's not like the Zoroastrians were peaceful to begin with. The Sassanids oppressed the Manichees, Mazdakites, Zurvanites, Greco-Buddhists, etc.

>>1554695
Neither is Islam

>>1554699
Sufism is far better than traditional Mazdaism in terms of tolerance.

Also, Sassanids like Kartir Hangirpe encouraged consanguineous marriage, so I don't know where this idea of Zoroastrianism being more progressive came from.

Also, there was an explosion of intellectual growth during the Samanid Empire, something we never really saw during the Sasanian or Achaeminid Empires.

I'm tired of Westerners who don't know shit about my history commenting on it.

>>1554706
The Sasanian empire also destroyed the last vestiges of Hellenic culture in Persia due to their intense we wuz persian view of the world. True or false statement?

>>1554706
>consanguineous marriage

Just like in Islam with cousins

>intellectual growth

Thanks to Arabs

>>1554726
>Thanks to Arabs
No. The majority of the Islamic Golden Age came from Iranians of Eastern Greater Iran, which are most likely ancestors of the Tajiks. For example, Avicenna, Al-Khwarizmi, Rhazes, Omar Khayyam, etc. -- all Iranians.

Iranian contribution to Islam was bigger than the Arabs.

>>1554718
The Seleucid Empire had to collapse, and the Sassanids helped us retain our Persian identity. I like them too.

>>1554726
Arabs didn't even contribute any meaningful addition in the ****Islamic**** Golden Age, it was Iranians, Indians, Berbers, and other minorities, mate.

>>1554706
>implying
We saw plenty of intellectual growth in the Sassanid Empire. The Academy of Gondishapur, revival of Greco-Roman philosophy and mathematics under Khosrau Anurshirvan aka the "The Immortal" who also brought Indian intellectuals to Gondishapur as well as the sheltering of Neo-Platoists who were being persecuted by Christian Byzantine officials in Byzantine lands. On top of that, Sassanid doctors were already describing antibodies and white blood cells in human bodies in medical texts.

>>1554738
Tajiks are literally Persians who colonized greater eastern parts of Khorasan.

>Sassanids helped us retain our Persian identity
The Sassanids DEFINE native Persian identity. The overwhelming majority of modern day unIslamic traditions, customs, and beliefs in Iran are tied to the Sassanids.

>>1554738
The Seleukid empire didn't need to collapse since Antiochus IV would have most likely defeated the Parthians and driven them back into the steppes. Sadly he died of disease and the kingdom fell into constant civil wars. The Parthians were rather good for the Greek settlements and became protectors and patrons of Hellenism. The Sassanians were hyper-nationalists however and despised the Seleukid legacy due to the perceived occupation when zoroastrianism was allowed and Iranian nobles served in the Agema. The Seleukid kings even had Iranian blood.
What do Iranians think of Mithradates IV?

>>1554762
The Sassanids and the Arsacids both rose to power precisely because Iranian peoples chafed under Greek/Macedonian rule, and why so much of their architecture, writings, and records were destroyed by the Arsacids and Sassanids. And the Arsacids in turn tried to blunt their growing political divide from other Iranics in the middle of their reign by throwing off their Greekboo tendencies but even then it was too little, too late. The Seleucids were never going to last because the Parthians and the Dahae Confederations were bleeding them dry and one decent ruler wasn't going to change a string of incompetent and weak Seleucid kings.

Also why are you even complaining about an Iranian/Persian people despising Greek culture when the Greeks and Macedonians did the same shit to Persians and other Iranians.

>>1554784
But Parthia was incredibly weak compared to the Seleukids. A local satrap defeated the Parthian king once. The Seleukids had many competent kings that all died from unfortunate disease or looting temples. The reason the Seleukid kingdom fell was because of civil wars in the last years of the kingdom, not due to Rome or Parthia. The Seleukid monarchs were incredibly tolerant of native religion and culture which is demonstrated by their support of temple building. Parthians were not natives to Persia either.

>>1554820
Parthian Empire lasted just shy of 500 years and nearly conquered the entirety of the Roman East at their height. They weren't weak, not even close to that to last that long.

>The reason the Seleucids fell was because of civil wars
Sounds like weakness to me as well, then. Especially since they were incredibly ineffective at managing their vast territories and dealt with many uprisings and revolts throughout their history.

>Seleucid monarchs were incredibly tolerant of native religions
Not really, they also were and are well documented of lobbying particularly harsh persecutions at Jews for one.
>Parthians were not natives to Persia either.
They are Iranians, unlike the Seleucid Greeks and Macedonians. And Parthia is located directly adjacent to Persia.

>>1554833
Parthia never conquered anything of note from Rome.

And the Seleukids never dealt with native uprisings except with certain Jews.

The wars of the Maccabes was a conflict between ISIS-like conservative jews and hellenised jews who had the support of the Seleukid government. The Jewish rebels were cruel religious fanatics that commited genocide against hellenised jews, greeks and samaritans. Antiochus IV did nothing wrong. The parthians shared little with the persians and if simply being right next to Persia makes you Iranian then I suppose that arabs are iranian too. The Macedonians were also better warriors compared to the feminine Persians. Twice did the Seleukid realm hold land in europe while the Sassanians only occupied Anatolia for a short while.

>>1554833
The only revolts of note in the Seleukid empire were by Greek satraps and the Jewish civil war. The Seleukid kings also built and sponsored native temples and priesthoods. Persia is a shittier civilization that only exists for martial cultures (Macedonians, Arabs and Turks) to conquer.

>>1554869
He said "nearly conquered the entirety of the Roman East", which they did after Antony's disastrous attempt at invading them. Please learn reading comprehension and pay attention to what others say.
>And the Seleucids near dealt with native uprisings except with certain Jews.
Wrong. Bactarians, Sogdians, Scythians, and Parni repeatedly revolted. Part of the reason the Dahae Confederation was so successful and driving the Seleucids out of the Iranian plateau was due to a certain Andragoras, a Persian satrap, who rebelled and expelled his ties from the Seleucid court.

>If being right next to Persia makes you Iranian
The Parni are Iranians, the Saka are Iranians, the Scythians are Iranians, the Sogdians are Iranian, the Iranian and Iranic peoples compromised the overwhelming majority of Iran and Western Central Asia and most of Eurasia until the 8th-9th centuries AD. You do not seem to know very much about Iranian peoples.

I'm not even going to get into this shit about "feminine" Persians or whatever given that line is hilarious given how often they got their shit kicked in by the Macedonians and the Romans. Hell the Romans humiliated them at fucking Thermopylae.

File: 1386911113394.png (57KB, 625x656px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 625x656px

>>1554878

what the fucking shit is going on here

>>1552861
The republican equites were laughably bad. So bad in fact that come the Empire, they just used auxiliaries for cavalry and just kept romans as infantry.

File: download (1).jpg (8KB, 224x160px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 224x160px

>>1552896
Civil engineer here. Roman roads are still used today, over 1500 years later. It's incredible what they did. Modern roads, while admittedly coming under a lot more stress, require a shit ton of maintenance to remain usable.

>>1552837
If your talking late Roman legions, then yes, nobody could touch them (with competent leadership). The late legions had career infantry with archers, calvalry and siege engines.

The Persian Army at the time of Cyrus and Xerxes was specialized for fighting Archer Calvary like the mongols, relying on large amounts of archers to blanket enemy formations. This was a big issue during the Greek-persian Wars because the Greeks had such heavy armor combined with tight formations. So Persia eventually lost to greece even thought they had almost zero archers (I think Athens were the only good archers on the Greek side) and calvalry (all the Greek calvalry fighting on Persians side).

The Roman legions had good Archer and calvalry auxiliaries in addition to advanced siege weapons and fantastic infantry with even better armor then the greeks.

Not familiar enough with Macedonia to say. Although iirc his field was around 30-40k which was close to the strength of unified rome. Once you get into later Roman periods I wouldn't put it past Roman logistics being able to get 60-100k army to the same area for a field battle.

>>1554012
>Weaker production (iron, gold etc)
Learn to use a source other than wikiversity.

The methodology used to derive Han/Roman estimates are completely different.

>Roman military was also more advanced on basically all levels.
Meritocracy,ferrous metallurgy,crossbows,far more cavalry etc.

>>1552837
yeah

>>1553664
>Antony gave Parthia the big dick
he actually gave them tons of dicks
attached to his dead soliders cause he was retarded
>recovered the golden eagles easily after Crassus fucked up in Carrhae
didn't know Gaius Julius Caesar Octavianus aka Augustus also went by the name Antony

Because they kept their tax rates very low and allowed the economy to flourish, thus contributing to maintaining a large military force. Something not really found anywhere else. This also doubled as an incentive for loyalty to the republic.

>>1555700
Modern roads requiring a lot of maintenance isn't really the fault of ability of today so much as it is the fact that our roads are relatively so fucking cheap and efficient.

Is it just me that thinks in close open field combat without weapons our armies are kinda fucked? i mean, they teach hand to hand combat but now we rely so heavily on artillery. what happens if every military unit in the world suddenly lost use of all the weapons? itd be the dumbest war in history. nobody knows how to wield a sword and shield nowadays. its fucking ridiculous. i think and of the ancient armies would EASILY win any war with all the armies now without the use of artillery. swords knives and shields only. im laughing just picturing the failures of our people. why do we rely so much on these things that can backfire or just fail on us at any time?

>>1555847
>why do we rely so much on these things that can backfire or just fail on us at any time?
because you don't have to train your soliders for decades

>>1552837
Ayy what mod is that?

>>1555857
does that seem weak to anyone but me? I think the soldiers who fought wars with swords and shields and arrows are WAY more badass and hardcore than the soldiers who sit so far away with a gun. Dont get me wrong, its till kinda cool to bomb the shit outta people but in my opinion i think a woman would go for someone who can wield a battle axe and sword and slice people to bits over someone who doesnt come within 10 feet of their enemy.

>>1555918
>does that seem weak to anyone but me?
in terms of unarmed combat ? no
in terms of general strength ? yes
>I think the soldiers who fought wars with swords and shields and arrows are WAY more badass and hardcore than the soldiers who sit so far away with a gun.
doesn't negate the fact that it's easier to give somebody a gun and teach them how to shoot thus enabling him to easily kill a guy with a sword
>i think a woman would go for someone who can wield a battle axe and sword and slice people to bits over someone who doesnt come within 10 feet of their enemy.
nah I'll always take someone with the brain to not bring a sword to a gun fight over someone trying to use a sword or axe as viable weapons today

>>1555945
Im speaking as if weapons were not in exitence. like if some random ass thing happened and they just all got fucked up and there were no mechanized weapons.

>>1555955
existence* i apologize, my laptop is fucked up.

>>1555955
>>1555964
in that case obviously
but that's like saying "I think scuba divers are the most badass people ever because if there was no land anymore nobody else would have that much experience with O2 bottles and diving

>>1555974
true. you have a good point. its also brings up an interesting thought. If technology and electricity was wiped out wed be running around like chickens with our heads cut off.
I think that if we took anything heavily used by humans or society itd be a huge disaster. i was just imagining our armies fighting the armies in ancient history as they fought. it was an interesting picture.

>>1552837
Probably the Han Dynasty could beat them, but I doubt any other competitors at the time could do more than tie them. Persia was pretty nasty, Axum was listed as an empire that could rival rome.

If were talking about all time periods they could have probably beaten charlemagne due to organizational practices alone, I have no doubts rome could kick ass all the way up until the Viking age, barring chinks

>>1555918
A woman will go for whoever can offer her better protection, which is a guy with a gun. Dont get me wrong, I am also more of a fan of melee combat, but it is absurd to suggest abandoning weapon tech just to appease your own vision of things such as "honor" and "skill." Now, OBVIOUSLY, people of the past would be better at melee fighting, just like how people of the past would be retards with guns. Also, your hypothetical situation is kind of dumb and doesn't have any point to prove

>>1553379
Poorly rip-offs from the persian original

Mongols would've crushed the Romans any time

>>1555813
I didn't mean to imply the Romans were better at making roads than us. Just mentioning a modern road because the average person has no idea how much maintenance it takes to keep roads working.

>>1552837
If anyone probably Germanics.
Rome dominated battlefields, Germanics always tried to fight them on non-battlefields, ambushes, forests, rough terrain (rough as is swampy or craggy).
Everyone else fought the Romans in open fields.

>>1555918

Big brutes attract nothing but hags on the last ticks of their biological clocks.

Men from the XV century onwards fought with firearms AND swords, walking straight into hails of fire and chopping at eachother with sabers.

>>1556212
Oh really? Because they did pretty well against all the horse-archer hordes they encountered.

>>1556212
>Mongols would've crushed the Romans any time

The Mongols have a 700 year advances in technology advantage.

I honestly believe Caesar could have beat any force up until gunpowder. And even then if he survived he'd adopt it and still kick asses.

That man was blessed by Fortuna, he did the impossible time and time again, until his luck ran out.

File: 1248280236320.png (174KB, 696x368px) Image search: [Google]

174KB, 696x368px

>>1553937