Both Caesar and Constantine planned to launch a full scale invasion

>>2704532
>Get rid of persia.
Lyl. Some Steppenigger will just take it and set up a Persianate State and meme himself as a Padishah and do it all over again.

>>2704532
>getting rid

Romans have been, at times, genocidal, but never to this extent: they were much more tolerant than that. Their cruelty was usually directed at specific enemies, in the worst case scenario they would have razed certain cities related to certain high calibre members of the Persian establishment.

Rome lacked the manpower and supply chains to conquer and end Persia. Long term colonization could work, but then Finns and other steppeniggers would just swoop down and end all of their progress.

The Romans knew they could only go so far east. Augustus himself said Armenia was Rome's natural Eastern border. Keeping a defensive Eastern Front was really all they could do, and it's why the Romans put up with the Jews autism (can't let the Person's gain access to Mare Nostrum after all!).

>>2704546
What can we do about the Eternal Steppenigger?

>>2704532
Caesar wanted neutral relationship with the Parthians.

>niggers
Persians invented human rights while Romans were under Etruscan rule

>>2704672
>human rights
You mean hammurabi's code? That's not the persians. And it was more about litigation than human rights.

If they innovated on it, then please correct me. Domestic persian history is not exactly my forte.

>>2704532
Go fuck yourself. Persians were and are the best race on earth.

>>2704532
/his/ is an iraniboo board, go back to /pol/

>>2704690
he's talking about the cyrus cylinder. how old are you? this is like basic high school world history.

>>2704703
Cyrus cylinder was mostly about liberating the jews and freedom of religion. That's nice but hardly a declaration of human rights.

>>2704532
>Persian
>niggers
pick one

File: image.jpg (20KB, 250x286px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 250x286px

>>2704532
you mad bro?
Zindabad Seljuks/Persia

>implying at that time Persia wasn't a better society in just about every way

>>2704532
Why do you have a hard-on for Caesar? He was a brutal murderer responsible for hundreds of thousands of Gauls' deaths.

>>2704532
had they conquered Persia, would it be able to set up the likes of a true Eastern Roman Empire, one in which the Capital was Babylon spreading far into Asia, essentially creating a Roman Asia? Or would it be completely impossible? I understand that Rome would have to overcome Mongols, Turks, Arab war lords, Indian Kingdoms, and many other factors, but could it be possible that these peoples would have homogenized into Roman politics and society like the Germanic's did in Northern and central Europe.

>>2705814
Because he was fucking awesome you pussy.

>>2705814
>how to be homogay in a single post

>>2705814
They should have fought harder then.

>>2704555
Tell that to the Samnites

>>2704699
>Persians were and are the best race on earth.
>islamic country
Uh huh.

>>2706041
>>2706069
>>2706078
Ah, I remember being a 16 year old war nerd with no real-life experience of violence and thinking that war was cool.

>>2706122
You mean the samnites who were initially integrated into roman society?

they got wiped out because they rebelled and betrayed Rome at literally every opportunity, which proves the previous anons point.

>>2705969
Nope, the distance to capital and the strength of local culture will either assimilate certain factors or completely destroy the intrusion.

>>2706136
>initially integrated into roman society?
They were hill peoples who would raid the plauins of campania before the First Samnite War, there is a lack of a proper city in and around Samnium in the ancient maps because they were rustic and austere murderhobos who were herdsmen and raiders.

>>2704703
>The Cylinder's text has traditionally been seen by biblical scholars as corroborative evidence of Cyrus' policy of the repatriation of the Jewish people following their Babylonian captivity[4] (an act that the Book of Ezra attributes to Cyrus[5]), as the text refers to the restoration of cult sanctuaries and repatriation of deported peoples.[6] This interpretation has been disputed, as the text identifies only Mesopotamian sanctuaries, and makes no mention of Jews, Jerusalem, or Judea.[7] The Cylinder has also been called the oldest known charter or symbol of universal human rights, a view rejected by others as anachronistic and a misunderstanding of the Cylinder's generic nature as a typical statement made by a new monarch at the beginning of his reign.
the assyrians and babylonians didn't force their gods on anyone. destroying the Jerusalem temple was taking revenge on a disloyal vassal, not a religion. allowing deported people back to their native lands and giving them clearance to rebuild cult sanctuaries is not about toleration, but a purely political move. the idea of inalienable human rights didn't exist until the enlightenment

>>2706132
If the gauls were too decentralised and primitive to stand up to superior Roman tactics, then the Romans had every right to civilise them. Can't have hundreds of thousands of nomadic tribesman on your doorstep.

>>2706132
yea ditto, they straight up ignored >>2705814
his point

>>2706153
>Thinks the Gauls were nomadic
Read more

>>2706165
>Read more
no u. Cimbrian war.
Caesar used the movement of huge numbers of Gauls near Cisalpine Gaul as a cassus belli against them.
In fact, they'd already tried it, and Marius kicked the shit out of them for it.

File: eternal.png (1MB, 1000x563px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1000x563px

>We could have removed the Eternal Iranian

>>2706187
The Cimbrians weren't Gauls.

>>2706152
This. If you hear something and you find yourself thinking "man what a cool thing to do." Don't. Immediately go "I wonder what the political motive for that was" even after the enlightenment, people doing things for the sake of good will was a meme.

>>2706187
The cimbrians were from jutland, you retard.

File: 18007094._SX540_[1].jpg (38KB, 540x298px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 540x298px

Even if Caesar managed to conquer Parthia it just wasn't worth it nor would he have been able to defend it. The Roman Empire was already way too large and with god knows how many subjects (different people and cultures). Also, most of the territories that Parthia held were quite poor.

The Romans could beat Parthia and any other nation every day of the week, however one thing is to beat them and another to control the territory and the people that come with it.

>>2706132
>I don't understand how things were in the antiquity and like to apply presentism to every historical subject I touch
neck yourself gaulscum

>>2705969

In the hypothetical scenario that Trajan lives for like 10 years more and is hell bent on crushing the Parthians, I think it would have been possible but only short term.

Mesopotamia was easy to gain but difficult to hold and that is due to the natural barriers it has which are rocky deserts, which are very difficult to traverse. Furthermore at some point the Persians under Roman occupation would have revolted, and Roman complete annexation of Persia is a pipe dream and never considered not only due to the size, lack of roads and resources and harsh environment but also due to its distance.

A much more realistic scenario for Roman control of the silk and spice trade coming from the east would be the control of the Arabian peninsula coastline and made more sense in a grand strategy way of sense. Similarly, Alexander the great considered Arabia the true economic frontier after the Indian campaign debacle, not India which was impossible to conquer. The point then is not to control the orient, but to control the access and flow of trade from and to the orient.

>>2706152
The Assyrians would simply mass murder everyone though. They even gloated of these practices in their own inscriptions and writings, so they were not that good. Half the reason why their empire was ultimately eradicated was due to their cruelty.

>>2706270
The Romans lost for 30+ straight years against Ardashir and Shapur the Great as soon as the Sassanids asserted themselves. They were not invincible.

>>2706328
It wasn't. Trajan's invasion over-extended the Roman Empire. That's why the Romans never undertook or were capable of undertaking any great offensive wars of conquest after the failure of trying to insanely annex Iranian lands. Not too mention that even ignoring the massive plague that got transported to the departing Roman legions after they were recalled immediately by Hadrian, the Romans never got close to the Iranian heartlands on the Iranian plateau.

Also the Romans initial success is largely due to the fact that Ctesiphon, the Arsacid dynasty's capital, was located barely 50-60 miles from the Parthian-Roman borders.

>>2706187
Cimbrians were Germanics, not Celtics. Also even early Roman accounts specifically note the Celtics and people like those living in Gaul were civilized which Caesar himself specifically contrasted with the Germanics being barbaric and warlike.

Romans actually respected Celtic people for their wares, industry, and society.

File: 7704 Surrender of Dawachi Khan.jpg (578KB, 1732x1024px) Image search: [Google]

578KB, 1732x1024px

>>2704631
Already taken care off.

Thank guns, Russia, and China.

File: quietus killing every jew on cyprus.png (27KB, 320x467px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 320x467px

>>2706697
you're confused with the plague of galen, which was spread after the parthian war of 161-66.

the roman legions were recalled to slay hebrews

>>2704532
There is literally no way any Roman army even under Marius/Sulla/Caesar/Antony/Agrippa/etc...would've ever been capable of going from Roman lands into Parthian/Persian lands and decisively "conquering it". The simple scale, distance, and opposition would make that an impossible task.

The entire reason the Age of Antiquity ended was due heavily to the wars between the Roman Republic and later Roman Empire with the Arsacid and later Sassanid Iranian Empire being frivolous. The core of Iranian peoples heartlands were in the Iranian plateau as well as large parts of Central Asia bordering and leading into the Steppes as well as geopgrahically being protected by large scale mountain ranges and other hostile territory that was nigh impossible for larger number of Roman army formations of ever navigating into it.

You guys remember why the Romans failed to get into Scotland? With its mountains, bogs, swamps, and the distance from Roman held Britain? Its the same concept here. Trajan tried to emulate Alexander the Great and his legacy while an impressive one was what doomed the Roman Empire's age of conquest to a grinding halt. In fact even looking over it historically, outside of the westernmost provinces of what makes up old Baghdad aka Ctesiphon which was part of traditionally old "Pars", I don't think any Roman or even Byzantine/ERE force ever made it into Iran proper.

Its simply impossible. And for that same reason it was impossible for the Parthians/Persians of destroying the Romans/Byzantines. Look at the wars and successes of guys like Shapur I and II or Khosrau went with taking Armenia, parts of Syria, and recovering portions of the Levant and Mesopotamia back, not eradication of the entire Roman influence.

>>2706755
Nah, there was a huge plague in Greek territory and the Roman Levant immediately following the Roman army's recall from Parthian lands once Trajan fell ill in 116-117.

>>2706768
>You guys remember why the Romans failed to get into Scotland?
But they did get into Scotland. Holding it was a complete waste of time and money, so they didn't.

>>2706153
They faced Rome's 50,000 with 300,000 gauls, and they lost. They deserve to loose.

>>2706768
The kind of people who think a Roman conquest of Persia was possible probably also think that Rommel could have driven east and joined up with the Sixth Army somewhere around the Garden of Eden. Arrows on map fetishists, not real historians.

>>2706280
Aww... how cute. Another 4chan sociopath who's proud of how cynical and jaded he is. And would probably cry like a bitch if he ever saw the kind of real-life violence he likes to glorify.

>>2706701
This is actual bullshit.

Yeah, the Germanians were caveman, but gauls were also watered-down cavemen.

>>2706701
>Romans actually respected Celtic people for their wares, industry, and society.
Dont forget the Sennones who burnt rome to the ground and they had to rebuild it.

>>2706910
That reply was more cynical and jaded than what the other faggot said mate. Why so edgy?

>>2706910
Once again you are judging the past by our modern standards, not really a good approach to history. Old empires were quite pragmatic when it came to conquest. Either you expanded or you were expanded upon. I'd refer you to the famous passage of Thucydides' melian dialogue: "The strong do what they can, the weak suffer what they must". Concepts of eris (strife) and agon (competition) were deeply anchored in greek culture. Similar thoughts could be said among romans virtues like providentia (military resolve) or auctoritas (authority). Even Egyptians had Isfet (chaos, strength through violence).

I think it's just hard to appreciate the context of those times with our modern sensibilities.You could not simply exist in a state of neutrality, if you had powerful neighbours they tended to rule over you - or vice-versa.

>>2707204
Do you think that Julius Caesar-era Gaul was a serious threat to the Roman Republic?

>>2707183
Cause I'm sick of this 4chan sociopathy and/or contrarianism. Mainstream society says conquering and pillaging is bad, so the edgelords and psychos who are common here insist that there's no morality, conquest is great, and so on. It's not only morally ugly, it's also rather dull and predictable... /his/ is constantly getting new threads that are on the 16-year old war nerd level of "Hey guize, who do you think the bestest conkeror of all timez is???" I recognize it because I was a 16-year old war nerd once too. I remember thinking how cool Alexander, Caesar, and Napoleon war... then I got older, learned more about all the aspects of statesmanship and war that go beyond just tactics and weapons, and became disgusted by all the Gr8 Konkerors I had once admired.

>>2707208
Doesn't matter what I think. That's the whole point. We're talking about dead men who lived in a world very different from ours and perceived equally differently.

>>2704532
Persia was a far better place than Rome.

>>2707233
Nah. Self defense makes sense. But conquering a land and people out of ambition and desire for power was wrong then and is wrong now.

>>2707233
It doesn't matter what they thought. Right and wrong don't change.

>>2707256
You're showing poor understanding of roman history. Once they identified a threat, they never really let go. When the gauls from cisalpina sacked rome in 380BC, the romans never forgot. When the macedonians steuck a treaty with Hannibal, the romans never forgot. When the seleucid struck an non-aggression pact with their antigonids, rome never forgot. When carthage attacked seguntum and had the second punic war, the romans never forgot. When the gauls raided transalpina in the early 100'sBC, rome never forgot.

Not trying to excuse it, nor sugarcoat that it probably was beneficial economically to both caesar and the senate, but that's juat how the romans were. They were always proactive when it came to potential threats.

>>2707292
Explaining that the Romans never forgot doesn't make it right.

>>2707258
Think what you like. They're all dead, I doubt they'll be bothered that much.

>>2707223
So you accuse them of the sin of ignorance? You were them once too man, whatever event that made you rise above it has not happend to them. Mainstream be damned, but you know you can empathize with the point that was made, that is why you are against it, because it is a 'been there done that' thing. Dont get wound up about opinions on a filipino hand puppet forum, it is more of a waste of time than you care to think. Just discuss the facts man, ignore the childishness and just be Zen, because lets face it, if you cant cultivate that attitude here then you cannot anywhere else. Balance your humours and discuss without prejudice, you will be fine.

>>2705814
The greatest of statesmen are brutal murderers, and the death of the gauls paved the way for the romanization of France and the expansion of the empire.

>>2707341
Sure, the people of the past worked with what they had. But even back then, not everyone was a blood-thirsty militarist. Some were more aggressive, others milder. And in any case, originally I wasn't criticizing the Romans (although I do fault their morals) - I was criticizing the people in this thread who have a hard-on for Caesar. Maybe the ancient Romans to some extent didn't know any better. But we've got sheltered first-worlders (most likely) in this thread now glorifying the butchery of real people. It's of course to be expected on 4chan, but it's still rather disgusting.

>>2707419
Strange definition of "great" you have.

>>2708147
Fuck off reddit, people are allowed to admire the statemanship and campaigns that eventually gave birth to modern europe.

You're just virtuesignalling about shit that has been out of everyone's control for over 2000years. Fucking kill yourself you tipping faggot

>>2707223
>>2708147

>waaaaaaaaaaaaah life is unfair and cruel and all my role models were actually murderous psychopaths

perhaps you should try /r9k/

>>2704631
Considering how badly they cucked us in the past, we've already lost.

>>2707223
Ah yes, gaius iulius caesar, only admired by nerds throughout history...

>>2704672
>Persians invented human rights

thats wrong though.

t. Master in International Human Rights Law

>>2706991
Read Caesar you retard. He describes each society in depth. Celts as civilized yet weak, Germans as uncivilized barbarians. He attacks gaul so Rome can prevent German nomadd invasions.

>>2706844
They never held it because it was impossible for them. On top of that the geography and terrain were literally the same as being in Inner Germania, too much bogs, narrow passes, cliffs, and swamp lands for large Roman armies to deal with in formations.

File: Crassus.jpg (29KB, 374x480px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 374x480px

Let's remember what happened when they actually tried.

>>2706122
Don't have to. They're dead

>>2704532
>posting a 6 foot tall white guy who looked nothing like caesar
REEEEEEEEEEEEEE
>>2705814
based, fuck the gauls

>>2706991
Gauls had townships, fortified settlements, roads, and streets, organized trade, and metal works and their own industry. Part of the reason why Julius Caesar's expedition and conquest of Gaul was so speedy was because Gaulics/Celtics in Gaul were a developing society.

Hell, the Romans and Parthians/Persians both iirc got their chainmail from trading with them.

>>2709341
I think a better example would be Antony who was actually militarily skilled and still got blown out.

>>2707223
>Mainstream society says conquering and pillaging is bad
that's not even true, americans barely give a shit about all the war crimes their country commits
>I was a 16-year old war nerd once too. I remember thinking how cool Alexander, Caesar, and Napoleon war... then I got older, learned more about all the aspects of statesmanship and war that go beyond just tactics and weapons, and became disgusted by all the Gr8 Konkerors I had once admired.
>i'm a pussy, the post
>>2708147
> I wasn't criticizing the Romans (although I do fault their morals)
there is no "nice guy" side in history, either you're on the side of progress or you're not

and guess what, progress means overthrowing vile reactionary regimes and societies like the barbarian gauls and germans even if you have to kill a few "innocents" and commit a few "war crimes" while doing so
>glorifying the butchery of real people
gauls aren't real people you turbofaggot, they're barbarians

during the napoleonic wars you are either on the side of napoleon or the reactionary tyrants of england and russia, you are on the side of caesar or you are on the side of the depraved oligarchs and the vile barbarians killing other tribes (and moving into roman territory) in gaul

>>2706122
You mean the Samnites who got full citizenship and became known as Italians after the Social War?

>>2707295
Being a whiny bitch doesn't make you right either

>>2704532
>implying
rome did not have the means to project their power over all of persia even if they did crush persia. they would leave, another guy would walk in and pick up the pieces, and hostilities would resume because rome would be busy dealing with another civil war or something.

I think part of the reason some idiots are under the impression Romans were superior to Parthians/Persians is because the Iranians had their capital at Ctesiphon which is VERY close to the Roman/Byzantine border shared with the Parthians/Persians. When I asked my Near Eastern History professor who specialized in antiquity and classical studies, he told me the general reason for this was a projection of power by the Iranians to the West.

That's why despite being ransacked and captured occasionally (mainly under the Arsacid dynasty, like three or four times), they refused to move their capital from the proximity it was to the border just to say "Fuck you" to the Romans.

>>2709148
Who did then, anon? Genuinely curious.

>>2709975
That's a meme, the parthians were even weaker than their seleucid predecessors and they bent the knee to rome like antiochius IV the epicuck

>>2710039
Can't be weaker then Seleucids when they beat them utterly.

>>2705814
because liking hitler isn't edgy and contrarian enough anymore

>>2704532
maybe god loves persia

>>2710091
It was already on the wane since 190bc at magnesia. The parthians only emerge and rebel against the seleucids 90 years later.

>>2710164
It was on the wane because of the Parthians rising in the first place in the mid-3rd century.

>>2710177
the parthian are not insiders mate, they're nobles within the seleucid empire rebelling and eventually seizing power as the empire slowly but surely starts to fragment. They might have become the ruling dynasty but they are presiding over a much tinier kingdom than they did before. They were literally not a threat. Hence why by the end of it, they ceded more territory to rome and learnt how to stfu about muh right to mediterranean access.

>>2710224
Anon, the period of the Parthian independence and the foundation of the Arsacid dynasty lead to a continue downwind spiral for the Selecuid Empire. When Arsaces founded his dynasty, and his subsequent expelling of Greek/Selecuid authority from Parthia, this coincided with further rebellions and provinces breaking away like the formation of the independent Greco-Bactarian state.

The Parthians were time and time again able to recover from any temporary loses to the Selecuids and take more territory, lands, and power from the Selecuids. By the time of Mithridates the Great/the first, the Selecuids completely gave up on even attempting to reconquer them and took a policy of trying to get them to become vassals instead. The Seluecids had the vast majority of their Asian territory when the Arsacids show up, so what your saying is not true.

>>2710251
>MUH ASIAN TERRITORIES
literally a meme parthafags tell themselves at night to explain why they never conquered anatolia or the "western near-east" again. They had to wait til Rome fell and they themselves got replaced by the sassanians before even seeing those regions again?

Persia died with Darius III. Deal with it.

>>2708524
>>2708498
He constantly spams this Gaulish genocide shit in every thread about Romans. I suspect he's an irate patty or scot doing the MUUUHHH HURRRRRRRITTAGGEE DESTROY'D BY ROME thing.

>>2710357
>I have no idea what I'm talking about the post
Neat.

>>2710416
NO UN ARGUMENTE

>>2710426
This >>2710357 is not an argument. This also has no relation to the previous post you were responding to while trying to move the goal posts on why the Seleucids fell to the Parthians/Arsacid dynasty.

Stop being so dumb.

>>2704532

Trajan been there, conquered that. Decided it wasn't worth keeping.

>>2710357
Are you retarded? The Parthian Empire fell almost two and half centuries before the Western Roman Empire ever did. On top of that, majority of wars were instigated by the Romans against the Parthians. Majority of their expansion efforts were aimed at the Caucasus regions and nations like Iberia, Albania, and Armenia.

>>2710437
Trajan's effort fucked the Roman Empire over in the long run and he never even conquered the whole thing.

>over-tax the Roman Empire
>move vital and essential reserve legions and manpower from the western garrisons to the East
>never break into Iranian heartlands
>die of illness failing to take a major Parthian fortress
>successor immediately gives up all "territory" temporarily taken by the Romans
>figurehead put on the Arsacid throne is immediately desposed and forced into exile
>consequences of Trajan's expedition completely cripple Rome from EVER undertaking any sort of offensive war of conquest ever again

Good job Trajan.

>>2710452

It was their own damn fault for killing off all the viable Hellenistic states that served as a buffer to the east. Imagine, 600 AD, Romans have no land border with Persia and therefore no devastating and exhausting Persian war. Arab invasions are soaked up by client kingdoms instead of zerg rushing two broken empires.

>>2706697
>The Romans lost for 30+ straight years against Ardashir and Shapur the Great as soon as the Sassanids asserted themselves. They were not invincible.


We're talking about the Parthian Empire, not the Sassanids. Ardashir got pushed back and defeated while Shapur was fighting a Rome way past it's peak. The Romans defeated them both, but by that time they had too many problems to take advatange of it.

And might I add that the Romans never had plans to conquer Parthia, only to keep them at bay. I already explained why.

>>2710509
Ardashir defeated Severus outside of Ctesiphon. Your claim about Shapur is also utterly and completely nonsensical. Between Ardashir and Shapur, both largely won territorial gains from the Roman's expense for nigh on 30+ years before Sassanid expansion was checked.

>And I might add that the Romans never had plans to conquer Parthia
Hearsay says Caesar might've, Crassus intended to, Antony intended to, and Trajan certainly intended to.

Stop lying.

>>2704532
>Rome could get rid of those annoying niggers once and for all.
>implying
The Persians more than showed that they could beat back the Romans blow for blow and then some. In fact, Rome for most of it's imperial history was a despotic shithole. A miracle that Persia didn't get rid of them since they were by far the most stable and rich.

>>2710520
>Ardashir defeated Severus outside of Ctesiphon

And then the Sassanids got pushed back and defeated by Gordian III.

>our claim about Shapur is also utterly and completely nonsensical.

Why? Crisis of the Third Century hit Rome when Shapur made his conquests. And the Romans under Galienus still pushed back the Sassanids.
>>2710520
>Hearsay says
Trajan died before he could. Antony never planned on conquering Persia and he had way more immediate concerns. Crassus' campaign was a private one and Caesar died before he could, as well as Trajan.


>>2710583
kek

>>2707223
>Cause I'm sick of this 4chan sociopathy and/or contrarianism
Then you can fuck off back to tumblr instead of shitting up thread with your autism.

File: Battle of Msiche.png (10KB, 310x277px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 310x277px

>>2710612
>defeated by Gordian III
Never happened. Ultimate result of the campaign was the Roman army under Gordian III getting defeated and him being killed in combat and then Shapur re-extended Sassanid expansion further west of Mesopotamia.
>Crisis of the Third Century Hit Rome
So what? Has no relevance to Shapur at all. Stop trying to deflect. One of the worst catastrophes and humiliating defeats happened to the Romans under Shapur at Edessa.

Stop lying.

>Trajan died before he could
Trajan never even made it into the Iranian plateau. He was also unable to deal with Parthian ambush parties, guerrilla tactics, and several fortresses in lower Pars even before he fell ill.

>>2710612
Not him but your kind of a shitter. You mention the Crisis of the Third Century as if the Roman Empire was super crippled rather then simply rocked by a series of primarily weak emperors then bring up Gordian III, which is funny because the majority of his "success" in the first Perso-Roman War with Shapur was when the Persian Emperor was busy putting down rebellions in the eastern Sassanid provinces near Central Asia, and when he came back around outside of one battle where a local army was forced to retire, the Sassanids then defeated Gordian III.

Hell ignoring Shapur's own statements about his defeat of Gordian III which are inscribed, even most modern historians agree Gordian III was either killed in combat at Msiche or murdered by his own guardsman for his defeat then the claim Philip specifically having him assassinated.

Hell the entire reason why the Romans/Byzantines and Parthians/Sassanids conflicts wax and wan success to one side or another had to do with who had more initiative at the time.

Also Armenia was held by the Sassanids from Shapur I taking it until Narses lost it around 298, nearly 40 years later. That's how war goes.

The parthians were next to an even greater menace, the white huns, Rome would NOT have wantes to border those guys, horsefuckers fuck your shit up(as they fucked up all of india and destroyed the indogreek kingdoms)

>>2706776
No, there wasn't. Again, you're confused with the Plague of Galen. There is no recorded plague for the years 116-117.

>>2710681
White Huns didn't show up till the late 4th/early 5th century, as a relevant power. As I recall, despite some successes against the Sassanids, they were ultimately wiped out by the Persians and the remnants of the White Hun were then destroyed by the Goturks.

>>2705814
The Gauls were a bunch of violent dickheads. They sacked Rome.

>>2710636
>Never happened.
What? He pushed them back before he was defeated in the battle that you posted. He regained all of Roman's territories though. Shapur renewed his attacks only after another succession crisis hit Rome and the Germanic tribes were advancing in on Roman territory which forced the Romans to divert their attention elsewhere. Then Carus came and sacked the Sassanid capital once again.

I'm sorry, but I think Rome had the upper hand in all of this.

>So what? Has no relevance to Shapur at all. Stop trying to deflect. One of the worst catastrophes and humiliating defeats happened to the Romans under Shapur at Edessa.

That's a first in Roman history, I bet. And it wasn't a catastrophe, it was humiliating. Cannae was catastrophy.

>>2710661
The Crisis of the Third Century was WAAAAAAAY more than putting down a few revolts, my friend. Mind want to check up on that.

>Hell
Most historians actually agree with the Roman ones - Gordian III didn't die in a battle. Yes, some historians dispute that, like this wasn't the first time in history.

>Hell the entire reason why the Romans/Byzantines

Not really. The Romans didn't feel like expanding into Parthia because they were already way too big. There were some exceptions but mostly the Romans were just defending their territory.

>>2704532

If anyone was going to conquest Persia it was Aurelian.

> Inherited an Empire that was weak and had lost two thirds of it's territory

>Gets power by defeating Roman legions in civil war

> Beats Germanics is multiple wars

> Beats Roman legions when he conquers Palmyrian Empire

> Analy annihilates a numerically superior force of veteran legions to retake the Gaullic Empire

> Rapes the Goths

> Does this all in 5 years

> On his way to conquer Persia when he dies

> Murdered because his own soldiers were terrified of him

If he had lived 5 more years he'd be an Alexander tier famous general.

>>2710696
>goturks
Can we make this a meme

The Persians were not invincible.

Heraclius beat them into submission when the e. roman empire was in an absolutely shitty condition, constantinople was under siege by the Slavs and Avars and he had lost all of the Levantine areas. Yet he did it without even taking Ctesiphon and with just 24.000 men.

Though this was the climax of the two states clashing thought the centuries. Most of these wars could have been avoided had the empire pursued a more firm and steady foreign policy in war that did not change when an emperor died.

Three emperors btfo Persia, including Trajan, Galerius, and Heraclius. The Romans in later times were however obsessed with maintaining the status quo. What they needed was a more extensive and drawn out war that would solidify Mesopotamia as a province and force the Persians into a becoming a permanent client kingdom, in the same way the Germans were subdued after Germanicus punitive war.

>>2710730
>What?
Never happened. Gordian III only fought Shapur the Great once and was decisively crushed at Msiche completely, likely killed in battle as the Persians claimed despite modern revisionist attempts to alter that claim as propaganda. Not only did he not compel the Sassanids to give up territory that Shapur took, but it would not be unitl half a century later that the Romans would temporarily recover Armenia and parts of the Levant back from Narses.

>Carus sacked the Sassanid capital
He sacked a Ctesiphon that was undefended when Bahram II was "busy dealing with rebellions and uprising in the Sassanid eastern territories" in Afghanistan. Big deal, are you seriously trying to claim attacking a capital city which is completely unguarded and the Persians are dealing with rebellions is somehow impressive?

>Rome had the upper hand in all of this
They didn't but you are mentally retarded so I can't help disabuse of the wrongness of your claims.

>Most historians actually agree Gordian III didn't die in battle
Not buying your bullshit, most attested historians and scholars think the opposite:

>Modern scholarship does not unanimously accept this course of the events. One view holds that Gordian died at Zaitha, murdered by his frustrated army, while the role of Philip is unknown. Other scholars, such as Kettenhofen, Hartman and Winter have concluded that Gordian died in battle against the Sassanids.

>Not really

Wrong. Again verified sources from even Romans writers portray most Roman generals and emperors wanted to conqueror Parthia and Persia. Stop lying.

>>2710755
>Aurelian
>beating Shapur the Great
Doubtful.png

>>2710864
Heraclius didn't even defeat the entire Sassanid military even after Khosrau II the Parviz was overthrown. Shahrabaraz maintained a military presence in the Roman Levant and Egypt for over a year after hostilies had officially ended and Khosrau II's son signed a peace treaty because Heraclius wasn't able to dislodge him militarily.

>>2710864
t. stormfront

>Trajan
Never fought Persia, only Parthia and failed at that and again completely annihilated the Roman military of its resources so greatly it would NEVER again attempt an offensive war of conquest in its remaining existence in what would become either the WRE or ERE halves.
>Galerius
He lost the 3/4ths the war with Narses from 294 to 298, including ceding the rest of what remained of Roman Armenia until Diocletian gave him a replacement army and general. In fact its reasonably believed that most of the success Galerius had in "reversing" Roman fortunes was due to Diocletian's involvement in the war.
>Heraclius
Most of this had to do with the Sassanid civil war happening, Shahrabaraz defecting as a neutral third party after Khosrau Parviz tried to have him assassinated and more due to political savy and negotiations between Heraclius and Shahrabaraz then actual combat.

>>2710696
My mistake, it were the Hepthalites

>>2704532
>Niggers
Persians isnt that bad as portrayed in mainstream movies.

>>2704532
>Rise of Islam

Daily reminder that eternal steppeniggers ruined everything

>>2711064
Oh thats right, the persians were such great warriors they never managed to conquer the roman empire, why was that again?
Oh yes,they didn't like travelling far from home

File: reviewbrah.jpg (97KB, 415x454px) Image search: [Google]

97KB, 415x454px

>>2711032
Are you Iranian by any chance?

>Never happened.
We're not talking about who fought who. Gordian regained the Roman territories that were lost previously. Losing the battle is another thing entirely.

>He sacked a Ctesiphon that was undefended when Bahram II
Kek, leaving the capital undefended. Really? We can go further in history, if you'd like. Galerius, defeated the Persians in a battle and sacked their capital AGAIN. Man, the Persian sure don't know how to defend their capital. I guess they were putting another revolt down.

>They didn't but you are mentally retarded so I can't help disabuse of the wrongness of your claims.
Uhuh, yeah, the Sassanids sure owned Rome... Yep, with their capital sacked six times and having only relative gains that were won back by Rome almost immediately after.

>Not buying your bullshit, most attested historians and scholars think the opposite:
So... 3 historians concluded that Gordian died in the battle and you immediately take that for a fact? Kek. Are you fucking stupid or something?

>Wrong
WHO?! WHO?! Caesar? We've already been over that. Trajan could have conquered Parthia if he was younger. KEEPING it is another thing entirely, though. Stop with your nationalistic bullshit.

Have you ever had an annoying fly that just buzzed in your ear constantly and just wouldn't go away? It's small and harmless but annoying nonetheless. That was what the Persians were to the Romans - an annoying fly. Sure, some Emperors tried to squash it, but for the most part they just let it be.

>>2704631
Industrialize

>>2706130
>Persians absorb much of Islam's influence and cuck the Arabs hard
>3000-1000 years later Anonymous anine fan thinks systematic religions are intrinsically valuable and not a tool of the state
Uh huh

File: a000396.jpg (95KB, 930x700px) Image search: [Google]

95KB, 930x700px

>>2706910
>Get a load of this faggot boys!

>>2707223
>became disgusted by all the Gr8 Konkerors I had once admired.

How many wars have you been in? Leave it to the vets and refugees, bro. STFU.

>>2704561
Interesting to think that now in the modern era - where we have the logistics and resources such that long distances, supply lines, and communication mean nothing - and now no one conquers.

>>2704631
Steppeniggers are already irrelevant.

Central Asia and Mongolia is literally WHO? tier.

Thank guns and cars.

>>2713931
Globalization.

>>2704672
>human rights

This meme again.

I dare anyone here to post an excerpt from the Cyrus Cylinder that even sounds half like human rights.

>>2713815
>Are you Iranian by any chance?
Nope
>We're not talking about who fought who.
You brought Gordian III when I brought up Shapur you dolt, what else am I suppose to take from that because Occham's Razor sure as hell indicates you were implicating he fought him.

On top of that, any recovery efforts made by Gordian III were reversed by Shapur, so ultimately your argument is worthless.

>Galerius defeated the Persians
He defeated Narseh after losing for most of the war.
>sacked Ctesiphon
No historical evidence of that much less even capturing it during Galerius time, wikipedia warrior kun. Are you retarded?

>capital sacked six times
Happened only once, and that was under Bahram II who again was fighting rebels and nomadic tribes in Afghanistan at the time. Never happened six times, stop lying. Or are you trying to suggest the Arsacid dynasty getting their capital hit multiple times is magically projected onto the Sassanids.

>So 3 historians

No, those are just the most notable ones on the record. Go ahead provide evidence of your claim being the accepted and most valid one in the mainstream, I'll wait. Especially since the two most accepted theories are that Gordian III was either killed in battle or murdered by his own troops for his string of defeats against Shapur. You are retarded.

>Trajan could've conquered Parthia
Nope.

Stop with your historical revisionism and blatant lies. There's a reason why Hadrian didn't buy into Trajan's delusions of grandeur and the fact not a single Roman army has ever made it into the Iranian plateau.

I'm fairly certain you are mentally handicapped give how much you have no idea what you are talking about.

>>2715214
>Nope
That was a rhetorical question.

>You brought Gordian III
And then they were taken back by Rome again. So what the fuck is your point?

>He defeated Narseh after losing for most of the war.
Yeah, lost the war so much that the Persians were forced to sign a HIGHLY unfavourable treaty. Goddamn retard. Arguing with you is like arguing with a brick wall.

>No historical evidence of that much less even capturing it during Galerius time, wikipedia warrior kun. Are you retarded?
First off, you're one to talk about wikipedia considering most of your information is straight up from there. Hell, you even copied wikipedia texts into your posts.

Second, there are sources you moron, unlike your (((modern))) historians that have no basis:

See T.D. Barnes, "Imperial Campaigns, A.D. 285-311," Phoenix 30 (1976), 184; cf. Barnes, New Empire and Constantine and Eusebius.

Go educate yourself, please.

>No, those are just the most notable ones on the record.

No, those are taken straight out of a wikipedia article. Again you prove how absolutely fucking retarded you are by making such statements that he was killed by his troops after his "string of defeats against Shapur".

The Roman Empire considered Gordian III's campaigns as success. Not only that but Shapur made absolutely no gains against the Romans at the end of the war and he didn't disturb them after Gordian's death for another eight years. His reign was seen in a positive light, unlike that of his successsor Philip.

>Nope
My fucking god, you're one dumb fuck. In a matter of 1 year Trajan annexed much of Persia's valuable provinces and even their capital, he even installed a puppet on the Parthian throne. The only reason Parthia survived is because he died the following year before he could resume his campaign. He started his campaign when he was 60 years old.

He could have conquered Parthia of that there is NO doubt, but he could not keep it. Hadrian's policy was stupid. (can't go in detail, post limit).

>>2715663
Not even that guy you are arguing with but: why are you bringing up Trajan constantly when he had nothing to do with Persia? Are you high? Parthia ! = Persia.

>He could have conquered Parthia

Proof? Like others have said, no Roman force in the entire period of 700+ years of contact between Romans/Byzantines vs the Parthians/Persians did a single force or army of theirs ever enter into the Iranian plateau.

Where is your evidence?

>>2715663
>That was a rhetorical question.
It was a stupid question and clearly one intended to also try and poison the well, you aren't fooling anyone here.
>*snip*
So you admit you were trying to alter the course of the conversation and argument after being caught red-handed? Neato. So what the fuck is YOUR point? Ardashir and Shapur's territorial gains were held for over 48+ years before Narseh lost them by being a retard. Stop being a monkey tier moron.

>lost the war so much
Galerius was such an embarrassment he was publically humiliated by Diocletian in front of the Roman soldiers until he was given reinforcements to reverse the situation and even then the only thing he managed to do with his victory was restore everything back to its pre-Persian annexation of Armenia and Roman western Levant territories with the old status quo. Your cherrypicking is terrible.

>muh sources
lol

Go kill yourself.

>Those were taken straight out of a wikipedia article.
Nope. Also prove your claim is still held in the mainstream view, I'll wait as long as it takes faggot. Because we both know you have absolutely nothing proving your claim is true at all.

>Roman Empire considered Gordian III's campaign a success.
>murdered or killed in battle
>all restored lands immediately re-annxed by the Persians under Shapur
>Philip the Arab forced to ransom his life and those of remnants of Gordian's army to high-tail it out of Persian lands
>success
Man you sure are dumb.

>Trajan annexed much of Persia
Trajan never fought the Persians you fucking retarded dolt. Again that was the Arsacid dynasty who ruled the Parthian Empire. On top of that his legions were being ambushed and forced into running battles with Parthian horsemen and archers who they couldn't stag and he was failing even before he fell ill to take several important Parthian fortifications he couldn't afford to "bypass" in what is now coastal Iraq.

You are a super moron.

>>2715695
>During the retreat Gordian perished. Most said that he was murdered by Philip’s agents, but Eusebius of Caesarea heard that “Gordianus was killed in Parthia”; Zosimus (who follows the official account) relates that Gordianus was killed deep in enemy’s land, and a garbled version in Zonaras (12.17) reports that “the young emperor” was overthrown from his horse in a battle, broke his thigh, and died of his wound. All say that Philip then swore friendship or made “a most shameful treaty” with Shapur and ended the war. He even ceded Armenia and Mesopotamia but later broke the treaty and seized them.
>Since 1940, it has been possible to contrast this version with the Persian view, given by Shapur himself in the KZ trilingual inscription (Back, pp. 290-94; Huyse, 1999, I, pp. 26-8). “Just as we were established on the throne, the emperor Gordianus gathered in all of the Roman Empire an army of Goths and Gemans and marched on Asurestan (Assyria), against Ērānšahr and against us. On the edges of Assyria, at Misiḵē [on the Euphrates as it flows close to the Tigris], there was a great frontal battle. And Gordianus Caesar perished, and we destroyed the Roman army. And the Romans proclaimed Philip emperor. And Philip Caesar came to us for terms, and paid us 500,000 denars as ransom for his life and became tributary to us.” A courtier of Shapur called Ābnun set up a fire as an oblation when “it was heard that the Romans had come and Shapur the King of kings had smitten them and had worsted them [so that they fell into our captivity] (Tavoosi and Frye, pp. 25-38; Gignoux, 1991, pp. 9-17; Livshits and Nikitin, pp. 41-44; MacKenzie, 1993, pp. 105-109; Skjærvo, 1992, pp. 153-60; Sundermann, 1993).

>>2715695
>sources
I bet you believe Ktesias was an actual historian and a trustworthy source, pleb

>>2715673

>Parthia is not Persia

The Parthians were an east Persian tribe,that spoke a Persian dialect, were Zoroastrians, and what was known as Parthia was a satrapy in the Iranian plateu bordering the Caspian sea.

>Proof? Like others have said, no Roman force in the entire period of 700+ years of contact between Romans/Byzantines vs the Parthians/Persians did a single force or army of theirs ever enter into the Iranian plateau.

Read the OP you idiot, all Roman wars were about Mesopotamia, which was rich, prosperous and with a thriving agricultural environment.

In contrast Persia was poor as fuck, rocky, with very little agriculture and with its economy being based on textiles or creating crafts due to the inflow of the silk road/spice trade from India and China.

The Romans never wanted to conquer the Parthians or the Sassanids. The war goals were access to Caspian sea through Armenia/Caucasian Iberia and access to silk/spice trade passing through Mesopotamia.

>>2715673
>It was a stupid question
No, I already know the answer, you imbecile.

>So you admit you were trying
What? Gordian reclaimed every territory that was lost to the Parthians. Philip was the one that ruined everything.

>Galerius was such an embarrassment
The status quo was what the Romans wanted since the beginning.

>Go kill yourself.
Not an argument.

>Nope
What the fuck do I have to prove? Almost everyone agrees that Gordian III didn't die in a battle. You seem to take everything Shapur said as face value, very nice. I already explained why Gordian III dying in battle was just not possible. Try reading next time instead of spering out like an autist.

>Man you sure are dumb
Philip the Arab was the one who most likely assassinated Gordian III. From all accounts he was an ambitious man and only sued for peace with Shapur I because he needed to establish his position back in Rome. His reign was not looked kindly upon and he was hated by the Romans and killed soon after taking the throne. He rose to power only after Timisitheus died under "mysterious" circumstances and Timistheus was the highly successful general that was heading straight towards Ctesiphon before he died.

>Trajan never fought the Persians
Excuses, excuses, excuses. In a matter of a year he annexed all the rich territories that the Persians had and installed a puppet. A YEAR, you dumb moron. That was when he was 60 years old.

God, arguing with you is getting on my nerves. You're so full of dumb nationalism that it hurts. In your next post you'll probably tell me that the Sassanians colonized space and built rockets.

>>2715783
>Parthians were an east Persian tribe
No they weren't.
>spoke a Persian dialect
No they didn't.
>were Zoroastrian
They weren't any more nominally Zoroastrian then the average Achaemenid was, so no.

Stop being a fucktard.
>>2715786
No, shit faggot, I know what a "rhetorical" question is.
>Gordian reclaimed every territory that was lost to the Parthians
Sassanids aren't Parthians, moron. Stop saying and repeating this nonsense.
>Philip was the one that ruined everything.
Nope, he just made it worse. Gordian III was killed in battle in a battle which he INSTIGATED and LOST and Philip's men did not want to continue a losing fight that would see them all either slaughtered or enslaved by the Persians.
>Not an argument.
Neither is most of your ad naseum bullshit, so we're even there.
>Almost everyone agrees that Gordian III didn't die in a battle.
No they don't. Appeal to belief is not a valid argument or claim to push your belief here in the thread. You didn't explain jack shit or rebuke my view at all.
>Philip the Arab was the one who most likely assassinated Gordian III.
Doubtful. Your head canon also isn't going to be accepted and isn't seen as such in histography or mainstream view of how Gordian III died, not accepting it period no matter how many times you repeat yourself.
>Excuses
Parthians/Parni are not Persians. The Arsacid dynasty is not the Sassanid dynasty, the Romans under Trajan never broke into the Iranian plateau and could not bypass any of their walled garrisons, fortifications, and castles in the area.
>A year
Less then a year in fact, and as soon as the Romans withrew with Trajan's illness he was immediately desposed and forced to abdicate. Puppet ruler doesn't mean jackshit shit.

>nationalism
Still not Iranian but you can keep trying to poison the well as much as you want to force your bullshit historical narrative.

>>2715919
>No, shit faggot,
Then why did you reply, dumbass?

>Sassanids aren't Parthians, moron
They are the same shit to me, though.

>Nope, he just made it worse
>losing fight that would see them all either slaughtered or enslaved by the Persians.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA, in what fantasy world would that have happened? When did Parthia, Sassanians, Persians, Iranians or whoever the fuck endangered the Roman Empire?
>No they don't
I did. I explained it in my other post. You literally make no sense. Go back and read it, not gonna repeat myself a thousand times just because your IQ is that of a vegetable.
>histography or mainstream view of how Gordian III died
The mainstream view is that he didn't die in the battle, no matter what Shapur I says or the 2-3 modern historians that you've posted. If Gordian III was such a failure and embarrassment he wouldn't have been deified and praised in Rome while his successor was universally hated. Considering the fast rise of Philip, the mysterious death of Timesitheus, and the mysterious death of Gordian III... who was at the center of all of that? Can you take a guess.

>, the Romans under Trajan never broke into the Iranian plateau
He fell ill before he could resume his campaign, you absolute moron. What part of that can't you get? That's like Alexander the Great dying at the battle of Grannicus...

What Trajan did in a matter of a year is extremely impressive whether you like it or not.

>Less then a year in fact, and as soon as the Romans withrew with Trajan's illness
>Trajan's illness
Oh fucking really? Of course he would get deposed after Trajan fell ill, there was no power behind him anymore. Goddamn, learn some fucking history.

>Still not Iranian
Nah mate, you're Santa Clause.

>>2716206
>Then why did you reply?
Because I can, faggot.
>They are the same shit to me, though.
Which proves how much of gigantic cock-sucking low-brow dipshit mongoloid you are. Neato.
>snip
I like how you try to move the goal posts constantly when getting blown the fuck out, neato.
>I did.
You didn't. No matter how much delusional bullshit you endear yourself into believing, its not true and not a single person is buying your lies. Try again, loser.
>The mainstream view is that he didn't die in battle
Wrong, strike #1.
>no matter what Shapur I says
Wrong, strike #2.
>2-3 modern historians
Try dozens, faggot. Still waiting for your evidence providing contrary to this view and sources countering them. Not buying the rest of your drivel either.
>Trajan fell ill
So what? Even before he failed ill and became sickly he wasn't able to break past Parthian/Arsacid fortifications on the Iranian coast or into Zagros Mountains, you dipshit. On top of that the entire area was where they held their cataphract reserves and horse archers which is an advantage to them and not Roman infantry. Stop pushing your head canon revisionism as fact.
>Of course he would get deposed
He got deposed of while Trajan was still alive you fucking moron. The Arsacid dynast he put in power as a figurehead literally followed Trajan and later Hadrian's army out of Mesopotamia. So it doesn't mean jackshit because it ended with nothing substantial or long term being accomplished so stop bringing this up like its impressive.

>Nah mate
Sure thing, buddy.

>>2716206
>The mainstream view is that he didn't die in battle
>no matter what Shapur I says
Sadly for you, this is proving to be the opposite of what your claiming. Mainly and primarily because if Gordian III had been successful in "matching" the Persians at Nsibis or "gotten to the walls of Ctesiphon" why would the Romans suddenly sue for peace if the Persians were on the backfoot and losing? Or why several Roman as well as the Persian sources of the battle both claim Gordian III fell in battle?

Roman claims are suspect, the Persian one not so much. On top of which the Persians took control of said city so I'm pretty confident he was either killed in battle or murdered by his own troops.

NOT AN ARGUMENT: THE POST

>>2716240
>Because I can, faggot.
Not an argument.

>Neato
Not an argument. Different tribes, but the same shit.

>blown the fuck out, neato.
Not an argument. You haven't done anything but embarrass yourself some more with your stupid ramblings about "MUH STRONG PERSIANS THAT WOULD HAVE OBLITERATED ROME IF THEY WANTED TO IN 3 SECONDS". We wuz.

>Try again, loser.
Not an argument. You still haven't gone back and read my post about Gordian. Keep talking the same shit when you have nothing to say. Or maybe you have read it but you're trying to deflect things.

>Wrong, strike
Not an argument.

>Try dozens, faggot.
Check my previous posts on Gordian III and why what you're saying it's not possible. I already posted my sources and you dismissed them when they were not to your liking. Copy your 3 historians straight from the page wiki of Gordian III again.

>So what?
Never even tried to go there. There is nothing valuable in Iran's plateau.

>horse archers which is an advantage to them and not Roman infantry
Nice fucking meme. I guess the only battle of Rome vs Sassanids/Parthians that you know of is Carrhae.

>He got deposed of while Trajan was still alive you fucking moron
That's because the Roman armies retreated after Trajan fell ill, you absolute retard. What part of a "puppet king" can't you get?

>The Arsacid dynast he put in power
Yes, because Trajan fell ill and Hadrian had an entirely different philosophy of doing things.

>So it doesn't mean jackshit because it ended with nothing substantial or long term being accomplished so stop bringing this up like its impressive.
Capturing the Parthian capital and all of its important territories in a matter of a year sounds impressive to me. What do you consider impressive?

>Sure thing buddy
Not an argument.

>>2716288
>Sadly for you, this is proving to be the opposite of what your claiming. Mainly and primarily because if Gordian III had been successful in "matching" the Persians at Nsibis or "gotten to the walls of Ctesiphon" why would the Romans suddenly sue for peace if the Persians were on the backfoot and losing?

Because Gordian III died and Philip the Arab, a most mysterious individual that rose through the ranks of the military pretty fast by having shady things happening around him, ascended to the throne. Philip had no choice but to sue for peace because his position was extremely vulnerable because nobody wanted him as an Emperor. He had to go back to Rome and try to assert his Imperial powers and to do that he needed to sign peace with Shapur because, as I said, he had more pressing concerns.

He was killed not long after becoming Emperor.

No Roman source claims he fell in battle. Shapur claims that Gordian III died in battle, but why the fuck would anyone trust him?

>>2716297
>NOT AN ARGUMENT: THE POST
Yes, I know your posts are exactly bullshit you don't have to put a caption on them as a warning, everyone gets that.
>Not an argument.
Not an argument.
>Not an argument.
Not an argument.
>Different tribes
Duh.
>same shit
Nope. Also not an argument.
>Not an argument.
Not an argument. You haven't done anything but embarrass yourself some more with your stupid bullshit and revisionist nonsense about "MUH STRONG ROMANS THAT WOULD HAVE OBLITERATED PARTHIA/PERSIA IF THEY WANTED TO IN 3 SECONDS". We wuz.
>Not an argument.
Not an argument. You still haven't gone back and read my posts about Gordian or Shapur. Keep talking the same bullshit when you have nothing to say or prove or can back up. Or maybe you have read it but you are just too dyslexic to understand what you read since you are clearly mentally disabled.
>Not an argument.
Not an argument.
>Check my previous posts.
Already did, riddled with nonsense, bullshit, cherrypicking, half-truths, lies, and historical revision with a biased narrative tailored to your personal bias isn't going to be accpted. That simple.
>Never even tried to go there.
Wrong. Also not an argument.
>There is nothing valuable in Iran's plateau.
Wrong. Also still not an argument.
>Meme
Nope. Also not an argument. Also again why are you trying to equate Sassanids with Arsacids again, faggot? Your knowledge of history is atrocious.
>That's blah blah blah
Trajan's forces were still in the area when Parthamaspates was forced out of power you fucking troglodyte. Sing more lies though if it makes you happy.
>B-b-b-b-ecause Trajan fell ill
Yes lets ignore him being stopped by static defenses totally here as well.
>Capturing the Parthian capital and its most important territories
War started in 113 AD, faggot. It was over 4 years and he still failed to put down the Parthian Empire despite his successes. Stop being retarded.
>Not an argument.
Not an argument.

File: Provinces_of_the_Achaemenid_empire.png (32KB, 1066x642px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 1066x642px

This originally good thread developed into an autistic shitposting match because one Iranian nationalist faggot cannot accept the Persians were beat in a war by the Romans. When it is documented historically as happening at least 3-4 times!

This is why we can't have nice things on /his/

>>>2715919

>The Parthian language, also known as Arsacid Pahlavi and Pahlawānīg, is a now-extinct ancient Northwestern Iranian language spoken in Parthia, a region of northeastern ancient Iran.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parthian_language

>Parthia roughly corresponds to a region in northeastern Iran. It was bordered by the Karakum desert in the north, included Kopet Dag mountain range and the Dasht-e-Kavir desert in the south. It bordered Media on the west, Hyrcania on the north west, Margiana on the north east, and Aria on the south east.

>Before Arsaces I of Parthia founded the Arsacid Dynasty, he was chieftain of the Parni, an ancient Central-Asian tribe of Iranian peoples and one of several nomadic tribes within the confederation of the Dahae.[14] The Parni most likely spoke an eastern Iranian language, in contrast to the northwestern Iranian language spoken at the time in Parthia.[15]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parthian_Empire#Origins_and_establishment

See me after class faggot.

>>2716311
>Becaues Gordian III died
In battle with the Persians, duh.
>Philip the Arab killed him.
No proof of this. Philip became prefect because Gordian III's previous one died of disease/illness which is well documented. Or do you think Philip gave him the sniffles?

>No Roman source claims he fell in battle.

Wrong:

>Most said that he was murdered by Philip’s agents, but Eusebius of Caesarea heard that “Gordianus was killed in Parthia”; Zosimus (who follows the official account) relates that Gordianus was killed deep in enemy’s land, and a garbled version in Zonaras (12.17) reports that “the young emperor” was overthrown from his horse in a battle, broke his thigh, and died of his wound.

>Shapur claims that Gordian III died in battle
As do several Roman and Greek sources, so what's the problem here?
>why the fuck would anyone trust him?
Because despite your bias, the supermajority of Shapur's "boasts" have been historically attested and proven true? Like his list of Roman provinces and cities he plundered, sacked, captured, or annexed? His claims of defeating Roman armies at the Battle of Edessa and the Battle of Barbalissos? And his dates match Roman ones? He has been consistently truthful for the most part in his inscriptions and the fact there are academically proven some of his records on his inscriptions are actually more truthful then Roman ones doesn't hurt.

>>2716346

Also gonna respond here:

Persian is a Western Iranian language, Parthian isn't even in the same branch of the Indo-Iranian languages as it. Why are you making things up?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persian_language
>Old/Middle/Modern Persian
>Western Iranian language

Why are you trying to say they speak the same language?

>>2716346
Persian is part of the western language tree of the Indo-Iranian group. Parthian is part of the Northerwestern language as your own article says. Why do you think these are the same? Do you think all Iranians are Persians too? Good job in sinking your own post you retarded piss-ant.

>Frankish is the same as Dutch because their both Germanic!

>>2716346
>autistic shitposting
You're pretty guilty of this.
>one Iranian nationalist faggot
Not Iranian but I bet your under the view anyone who argues against your bullshit is "x" nationality, which proves how childish and mentally unstable you are. Go back to /po;/ faggot.

>>2716364

Its in the same language family.

From Wikipedia:

Language family:

Indo-European
Indo-Iranian
Iranian
Western Iranian
Northwestern Iranian
Parthian

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Iranian_languages

Also look at the map I posted, look where the satrapies of Parthia, Medea, and Persia are, and tell me the Parthians are not Persians.

>>2716330
Your entire post is just deflecting. You can't counter my points so you try and play dumb. Whatever, I'll reply to the ones that you, at least, tried to use your little brain on.

>Trajan's forces were still in the area when Parthamaspates was forced out of power you fucking troglodyte. Sing more lies though if it makes you happy.
Umm, retard, are you sure about that? Parthamaspates was deposed after the Romans left. You're not even trying anymore.

>Yes lets ignore him being stopped by static defenses totally here as well.
No such thing happened, dumbo. Maybe in your alternate reality. He captured Mesopotamia, installed a Parthian king as a puppet and would have continued his campaign, if he didn't fell ill.

>War started in 113 AD, faggot. It was over 4 years and he still failed to put down the Parthian Empire despite his successes. Stop being retarded.

The war against Parthia started in 115 AD when Trajan started invading Mesopotamia, you colossal faggot

>>2716391
None of them are the same, Northwestern is not Western. So wrong again.

>>2716392
Your entire post is just red herrings, non-sequiturs, and historical narrative tailored revisionism for your own personal benefit since you are a troll and shitposter. No one is buying your lies at all.

>Ummm
Wrong. Also not an argument.

>No such thing happened.
Except it did. Also not an argument. Also learn to geography faggot. In fact I imagine you are a shining example of what a dyslexic child who failed to even get their GED resembles in "mental" capacities.
>The war against Parthia started in 115 AD
The war started in late 113 AD/early 114 AD when he invaded and attacked Parthian held Armenia you dumb-fuck.

File: 1446421322096.png (136KB, 250x250px) Image search: [Google]

136KB, 250x250px

>>2716391
>Persians speak Persian
>Parthians speak Parthian
>Persian is a Western Iranian language
>Parthian Pahlavi is a Northwestern Iranian language
>Persians are from Pars/Fars
>Parthians are from Parthia
>"Why aren't you accepting they aren't the same people?"

Seriously think about what your arguing because this is some of the dumbest shit in this thread which says something. Because I want you recap here:

>two separate ethnic groups of Iranian people
>who come from two different places in the Iranian plateau
>who speak two similar but DIFFERENT Iranian languages
Parthians are NOT Persians.

File: trajan-in-the-east.jpg (142KB, 650x590px) Image search: [Google]

142KB, 650x590px

>>2716385

>MUH PERSIA NEVER CONQUERED

>ROMANS NEVER ENTERED INTO IRANIAN PLATEAU!!!111

oops what is this?

>When the Parthian Empire gained its independence from the Seleucid Empire, and took control of much of its eastern provinces, Susa was made one of the two capitals (along with Ctesiphon) of the new state.

>Susa became a frequent place of refuge for Parthian and later, the Persian Sassanid kings, as the Romans sacked Ctesiphon five different times between 116 and 297 AD Susa was briefly captured only by Roman emperor Trajan in 116 AD

>>2716423
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khuzestan_Province#/media/File:IranKhuzestan-SVG.svg
>not actually part of the Iranian plateau
Neat

Also

Why are you typing in all caps and breaking global rules, faggot kun? On top of which, when did Ctesiphon get sacked besides when one Persian emperor was busy fighting rebellions in the East?

File: 1446419934508.jpg (127KB, 1024x781px) Image search: [Google]

127KB, 1024x781px

>>2716423
>(Susa was briefly captured only by Roman emperor Trajan in 116 AD and never again would the Roman Empire advance so far to the east.
>never again would the Roman Empire advance so far east
>NEVER
>AGAIN

>>2704532
is it true that persians are just borderline-faggot mannered muslims?

>>2716443
>>2716423
(You) aren't good at hiding samefagging.

>>2716364
>In battle with the Persians, duh.
No proof.

>No proof of this. Philip became prefect because Gordian III's previous one died of disease/illness which is well documented. Or do you think Philip gave him the sniffles?
We don't know what happened. Philip became prefect because Timesitheus also died under mysterious circumstances. We do know that Philip was at the center of it all. Whether he killed them or what else doesn't matter.

At any rate what you're saying is not possible for the simple fact that Gordian III was praised in Rome, his campagin thought of as success and he was deified. On top of all Philip, his successor, wasn't liked and had to deal with constant revolts during his short reign.

The most likely scenario of all of this is that Philip, being the ambitious cunt that he was, ordered his soldiers to kill Gordian III.

I've been over this topic way too much to continue explaining why it doesn't make sense.

"To the deified Gordian, conqueror of the Persians, conqueror of the Goths, conqueror of the Sarmatians, queller of mutinies at Rome, conqueror of the Germans, but no conqueror of Phillipi."

>>2716401
>Wrong. Also not an argument.
Here we go, you absolute cunt. You have nothing to dispute what I said so you try to deflect in the most pathetic way imaginable.

>Except it did.
Again you provide no argument, only insults. Fag.

>The war started in late 113 AD/early 114 AD when he invaded and attacked Parthian held Armenia you dumb-fuck.
Parthia didn't hold Armenia, you imbecile. It was a buffer state in which both Rome and Parthia had influence. That was the deal Nero made. The campaign against Parthia itself started in 115. Learn your goddamn gypsy history.

>>2716457
>No proof.
Lots of proof, both from Roman/Greek source I posted and Shapur the Great's own inscriptions which align together more then your conspiracy theory claims of Philip going Darth Sidious on Gordian III.

>We don't know what happened.
We do in fact. Gordian III's previous prefect falls ill, dies, and Philip was already one of the top soldiers in the army and moved into being his replacement and successor.

>Most likely scenario of all this is that Philip ordered his soldiers to kill Gordian III.
And why would he do this if Gordian III was so successful and would enjoy the full rapport and support of the Roman army?

Your claims don't match up at all with the fact and record.

>>2716419

They were both Iranic peoples speaking a language not only the same language family but what is essentially different dialects separated by geography.

Saying it is the same as Dutch with German is completely nonsensical. Both north-western Iranian and western Iranian are essentially the same and it is like saying dialects make different languages. Even more absurd saying they are not Persian, when Persia from the Achaemenid Empire and after became a group catch all term for all tribes inhabiting the Iranian plateu.

Again from Wikipedia:

>Middle Persian consisted of several dialects and variants. One of these variants was called Pahlavīk (Pahlavi) which stands for Parthian, and refers to the Middle Persian that was the language of the Parthian Empire. Another variant of Middle Persian, known locally as Pārsik, was the official language of the Sasanian Empire. Most scholars refer to the latter variant when using the term "Middle Persian".[2][3]

>>2716457
>Here we go.
Yes, autist kun. Here we go indeed you super faggot. You have NOTHING and are unable to either stay on topic, continually samefag blatantly, break rules, authenticate historical revisionism and a biased narrative of the worst possible capacities and continually prove how much of a liar and retard you are. You are in no position to talk about ANYTHING or ANYONE deflecting when all of your posts are entirely that to avoid the tangents and topics you get blown the fuck out on.

>Again you provide no arguments.
Wrong. Already did countless times, just because you ad naseum et ad infinitum ignore them doesn't mean my previous posts don't hold them. Your problem, not mine.

>Fag.
You suck at ad hominems too, piss-ant.

>Parthia didn't hold Armenia
Parthia had soldiers in Armenia and put a pro-Parthian king in power you fucking moron. It was an Arsacid province in all but name which is one of the main excuses Trajan was able to use as pretext for his Parthian campaign you sodomite brain dead moron.

>>2716431

Is this your counter?

Seriously this is infantile tier.

The Romans faced a billion rebellions, coups and betrayals when fighting their wars.

But Instead of discussing history you want to get into a pissing match, over ancient history, when people in this thread have told you and other over and over again that the Romans never intended on fully conquering Persia.

>>2716471
>They were both Iranic peoples
That isn't contested and this is needless filler to pad out your post and argument.
>speaking a language
No shit?
>different dialects
They aren't the same language. Parsig Pahlavi is Middle Persian, Pahlawānīg are not the same language. They are separate ones entirely. This is why they occupy different branches of the Indo-Iranian language group, one being Western and one being Northwestern. They aren't even mutually intelligeble which MOST dialects of the "same languages" 99% of the time are.

They are not the same in anyway. You can not use misappropriated nomenclature as an arugment to say Persians and Parthians are the same people or that they spoke the same languages, because they never did. In fact Pahlawānīg disappears and is replaced by Persian Pahlavi/Middle Persian because the Parthian language goes extinct only after centuries of Sassanid Persian dominance once the Arsacid dynasty goes down to the Sassanid dynasty.

>>2709591
Crassus had military talent too. It just that he was desperate to prove himself and was rushing too much.

>>2716485
Is this your counter? More nonsensical ramblings while you get pissy, stormfront kun?

>people

There is no people here, there is only (You) arguing with several posters proving your claims about Trajan, Grodian III, and the differences about Parthians and Persians wrong over and over again.

>>2716467
>Lots of proof
Where? You haven't posted a single one. Just a random text from somewhere.

>We do in fact. Gordian III's previous prefect falls ill, dies, and Philip was already one of the top soldiers in the army and moved into being his replacement and successor.
No, we do not know if he fell ill. We know he died, but we do not know how.

>And why would he do this if Gordian III was so successful and would enjoy the full rapport and support of the Roman army?
Tell me why would an ambitious man want to do anything? Gordian III was an easy prey, a young ruler that was inexperienced but not that easy to control, as Philip would have liked. You're saying it like this was the first time a Roman wanted to overthrow his Emperor, or the first time that an army turned against their Emperor, yada yada.

>Yes, autist kun.

You keep projecting your fantasies if that's what makes you happy, you delusional gypsy.

>Wrong
Wrong. You've provided absolutely nothing except lies. And when you got caught in those lies you tried to deflect the topics without answering the original question.

>You suck at ad hominems too, piss-ant.
Twat.

>Parthia had soldiers in Armenia and put a pro-Parthian king in power you fucking moron. It was an Arsacid province in all but name which is one of the main excuses Trajan was able to use as pretext for his Parthian campaign you sodomite brain dead moron.

You dumb nigger, Armenia was a client state, a BUFFER STATE to both Rome and Parthia. BOTH had influence over the country. IT WASN'T PARTHIA'S TERRITORY.

Gas yourself, you neanderthal.

>>2716494

You are confusing me with the other guy.

Only person who is samefagging autistically is you.

>>2716496
>Where?
In my post. You can't dismiss it just because you don't like it.
>No we do not know if he fell ill.
Wrong: most likely implicated fate of Timesitheus was he died of sickness, given he already held the fucking coveted position of chief of the Praetorian Guard and was the most secure man in the Roman expedition against the Persians.

>Tell me blah blah blah
I don't have to appeal to your belief to make my argument, anon. Also your fantasies aren't being bought by anyone here but you can keep repeating yourself as much as you want.

>Wrong.
Wrong. You've provided absolutely nothing except the most blatant of lies. And when you were caught repeatedly in those lies you tried to use red herring and strawman arguments to save face, which you failed miserably at as well as usual which is typical form for you given your gross incompetence.

>gypsy
I'm 100% whiter then a sub-human cockroach like you. Nor am I delusional, kill thyself.
>Twat.
Ouch, is this the best your little neurons can fire up now? I'm scared now!
>You dumb nigger Armenia was a client state
Are you so stupid you can't even into reading comprehension? Are you really this incapable of doing even the most simple of tasks?

>>2716501
(You) are the same poster, try again.

>>2716471
Not even him but this is absolutely retarded. The closet related languages to Parthian/Arsacid Pahlavi isn't even Middle or Modern Persian in either forms, its fucking Hawarami Kurdish/Sorani and other Eastern Iranian surviving modern languages have more in common with it then they do with Middle Persian. Sogdian and Bactarian languages are also attested to be closer to Middle and Modern Persian then the Parthian language.

>>2716519
Also to add Middle Persian and Parthian (with what little Iranianologists who specialize in studying ancient/extinct Iranian/Iranic language) have both of them separate from each other so clearly they can not be THE SAME language or simply two different dialects.

This thread is fucking stupid.

File: 1231231233.png (76KB, 161x242px) Image search: [Google]

76KB, 161x242px

>>2716509
In my post.
Where? You've only posted a text, no names, no sources. Where is your proof?

>Wrong most likely implicated fate of Timesitheus was he died of sicknes

No such thing. Stop projecting.

The rest of my post wasn't addresssed to (((you))). Are you sure you didn't forget to switch to your other personality for this post? Caught you samefagging on top of it all.

Damn, you're truly pathetic. Take my advice and gas yourself.

File: 1455337289883.jpg (63KB, 611x715px) Image search: [Google]

63KB, 611x715px

>>2716530
Nice fuck up at even using quotations right, shrek. I suggest you return back to /reddit/ with the rest of your kind.

>No such thing.
Wrong.
>Stop projecting.
Irony.
>(((you))))
You mean (You)? Are you schizophrenic too? Shocking but not really surprising in the least to be quite honest.
>Caught you samefagging.
Irony again:

>>2716501
>>2716496
>>2716485
>>2716471
>>2716457
>>2716443
>>2716423
>>2716392
>"Its not m-me I swear, mom!"
Damn you are truly the most pathetic of cucks on this board, anon. Take my advice and castrate yourself so you don't somehow accidentally spread your defective line down the future into our gene pool.

>>2716540
You're not even hiding anymore, you absolute schizophrenic faggot. Go fix your multiple personality disorder first before posting on an anonymous Vietnamese anime board. You did make me laugh though so I guess that's something. Now into the gas chamber with you.

>>2716540

You retarded newfag, check the posting hour limit. As I told you before,only these posts are mine:

>>2716501 (You)
>>2716485 (You)
>>2716471 (You)
>>2716423 (You)


Learn 2 4chan

>>2716554
>>2716558
You're not even hiding anymore, you absolute faggot. Post timer is short enough for making same-fagging very easy.

>21:00:32
>21:01:51
Yeah (you) showed me.

>>2716560
>15 seconds
This is me pretending to be a different poster now.

>>2716560
Kek. Your stupidty never ceases to amaze me. You're one dumb fuck.

>>2716558
>>2716560
>>2716561
>Learn 2 4chan
Nice global rule breaking there again, faggot kun. Also

>less then 20 seconds cool down between posts on /his/
>"T-they aren't my posts!"
You are fucking outed.

>>2716564
This is my post >>2716565, whose talking about whose stupidity you dumb fuck?

>>2716564
You are literally mentally handicapped.

File: You are REALLY dumb.png (8KB, 488x187px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 488x187px

>>2716564
You aren't too bright at all.

File: 1.png (20KB, 530x181px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 530x181px

>>2716567
>>2716568
>>2716573

Yes, this guy >>2716561 is literally me. Deranged autist.

File: I'm CIA.jpg (60KB, 360x479px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 360x479px

>>2716577
>mfw he wants to be (me) now

>>2716577
>21:08:23
Woah, 1 minute and 57 seconds in photoshop to alter the image screencap! That must be a record.

>>2705814
>Leave poor Gauls alone!
>They dindu nuffin, they were peaceful in Gaul!
>Liking Caesar is equal to being a closeted Nazi!

Kill yourself. If this is bait, kill yourself. You should just kill yourself. You contribute nothing to existence

>>2713931
You have better market control than territory control nowadays.

File: 1463806859184.jpg (33KB, 337x275px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 337x275px

>>2705814
>Gaul lives matter

>>2704631
Genocide

>>2704532
>Be Constantine
>Get rid of stupid rivals
>unite Rome
>move the capital to a better location
>Realize that Persia is your biggest threat
>All your successors are too stupid and waste their time and resources trying to kill a bunch of snow niggers instead of just making them citizens and throwing them into the front lines of a war against Persia

Only Julian and Constantius II understood the score.

>>2710501
>what are the ghassanids

They already killed Persia like five times, no matter what they always came back.

The emperor who came after Trajan took one look at mesopotamia, declared it indefensible and instantly pulled back.

>>2718443
A lot of Persian rulers specifically note the Romans/Byzantines using Goths, Gauls, and Celtics in their armies in their inscriptions.

>>2718604
Nope.

This thread is so fucking stupid, my god.

>hurr but muh Trajan sacked the capital of the Persian empire!!&
>hurr but that empire isn't Persian!!1!

>>2718657
Yep.

>>2718689
Nope.