yeah

>>2731079
Rule over unpopulated land is meaningless.

Its just easy to take over an area where villages have a distance of 100 kilometers between them.

>>2731079
>One lasted 100 years before crumbling apart, and made virtually no contributions to society except the gene pool and opening relations between the west and east
>The other lasted 2000 years and contributed virtually everything we hold dear

File: british_empire_vs_mongol_empir_by_fhgfhgfd-d3ivtz3.png (117KB, 900x417px) Image search: [Google]

117KB, 900x417px

>>2731079
> implying I don't frequent /his/

>>2731134
That's why the Persian Empire was the greatest in history. They ruled most of humanity.

>>2731157
> They ruled most of humanity.
Except China, India, and Europe, i.e. most of humanity.

>muh 1000s of miles of tundra

>>2731148
I'd kill you for suggesting that that bordergore you call "empire" was greater than the beautiful mongol blob.

>>2731157
Look not really. Compared to all others the strongest empires in terms of actual power have always been around China. Being able to easily raise over 300.000 men and keep them alive through campaigns. Thing is, their political situation never truly stabilized and they were also not especially expansionist. The strongest empire in terms of compared to everyone else was probably the Hapsburg family that controlled Spain, Austria, Naples, Netherlands and other German territories as well as the wealth of the americas that belonged to spain who was in a union with portugal, therefore tying probably over 50% of the world's economy.

>>2731161
They weren't as populace back then.

>>2731165
Don't copy-paste my posts faggot.

>>2731178
They would actually come to mine so much gold and become so rich that they'd make gold and silver worthless and so go broke but for a short time they had the wealth to re create an empire out of nothing if they so pleased.

>>2731134
>Rule over unpopulated land is meaningless.
>North Europe is populated land

>>2731198
That would be a fair point. If they didnt completely pillage and slaughter everyone in the west making their rule absolutely depopulated.

>>2731198
>Roman Empire
>Northern Europe
Yeah no

>>2731204
They didn't COMPLETE depopulate any one region of their empire no more than Romans murdering germanics by the millions completely depopulated the region.

>>2731215
Yea but Germania was not part of the roman empire.

As for complete depopulation, they did completely depopulate the most important city of the muslim world baghdad. They slaughtered everyone.

Rome was far far more careful in its approach. Mongolia did seek to burn down villages and to drive people away from the lands conquered.

it's a little misleading to put that mongol blob next to rome as if the mongols administered their empire in anywhere near as centralized a fashion.

>>2731079
>amazing soldiers
>couldn't even conquer India

File: British_Empire_1921.png (32KB, 1425x625px)

32KB, 1425x625px

>>2731079
Rule Britannia

>>2731079
>Roman Empire duration: 1000 years
>Byzantine Empire duration: 1100+ years
>Iranian Empire (Arscaid + Sasanid dynasties+): 900+ years
>Mongol Empire: 100 years

Mongols are a meme.

>>2731157
Achaemenid Empire at its height had under its aegis 44% to 50% of the total human population under its domain.

>>2731390
I know, huge, right?

>roman """empire"""
more like the manlet empire

File: Achaemenid_Iran_550-330_BCE.png (396KB, 1463x1038px) Image search: [Google]

396KB, 1463x1038px

>>2731385
This. A good large but not ridiculously huge sized empire/imperium like the Romans and Persiand had is the best because it doesn't become so large that parts of itself permanently break off or too huge to administer and garrison to keep your state in order.

Its no surprise the world's two largest empires, the British and Mongol ones, are amongst the shortest lived major empires in human history.

>>2731385
this
Empires without longevity can't produce quality OC. Their military might (and should) be remembered, but culturally they are borderline sterile.

>>2731390
Are you including the Americas or just Eurasia?

>>2731079
Rulling over desert wastelands for 50-100 years is not really impressive.

>>2731584
If your referring to my post on the Achaemenids I'm pretty sure I'm talking about just Eurasia. Most of urbanized settlements, townships, and cities were largely concentrated in the Near East, Western, and Southern Asia ignoring China being an outlier at the time.

>>2731512
Fucking Phoenicians stopping them from expanding to Carthage

>>2731157
I appreciate the Persians because they were an invaluable aspect of human development overall. Muslim Arabs received much of their higher culture from the Sassanids.

>>2731512
It surprised me as a kid that the Parthians and Sassanids fought against the Romans/Byzantines despite having nowhere near as much territory and resources at hand. It was a real waste that both empires warred against one another when their energies should've been better spent subduing barbarians at their frontiers.

>>2731134
>underpopulated land
>china
>persia
>central asian silk road cities

top fucking retard

>>2732177
What? The Arsacids and Sassanid had comparatively similar sized lands and an equivalent population as the Romans/Byzantines did even at the latter's height of power. Even then, the wealthiest and most urbanized and heaviest concentrations of towns and cities along with economies were in the Levant and Mesopotamia and the Silk Road areas. Roman's and Byzantine's most productive provinces were those like Syria and Persian's equivalent were Mesopotamia.

Both sides were relatively evenly matched in most ways. Only way there's a huge difference is the fact that the Parthians/Persians kept their capital within a stone's throw of the shared border; Ctesiphon being less then 60 kilometers from Roman/Byzantine frontier and the Parthians generally being very passive and fighting defensive wars against Romans aggression 90% of the time.

>>2731148
You only highlighted land you should also highlight the ocean

>>2732196
>t. found the butthurt Iranian


>Both sides were relatively evenly matched in most ways. Only way there's a huge difference is the fact that the Parthians/Persians kept their capital within a stone's throw of the shared border; Ctesiphon being less then 60 kilometers from Roman/Byzantine frontier and the Parthians generally being very passive and fighting defensive wars against Romans aggression 90% of the time.
Parthians and Sassanids fought defensive wars against the Romans? You need to check up on your history, idiot.

>Both sides were relatively evenly matched

Yeah... that's why Parthia was beaten numerous times and in the end disappeared, the Sassanids also lost to the Byzantines and were conquered by the Arabs, enslaved and forced to convert.

>>2732210
Are you retarded?

On top of that why is your reading comprehension so shit? I specifically said the Parthians primarily fought defensive wars against the Romans.

>Sassanids lost to the Byzantines

The end of the final Byzantine-Persian War was Heraclius unable to besiege Ctesiphon or cross the rivers surrounding it, and he had to make a separate peace treaty and negotiate personally with Shahrabaraz who didn't even leave with his armies from Roman Syria and Egypt until more then a year after Khosrow II's son and successor had already signed an armstice with Heraclius.

Are you fucking retarded?

>Iranian
No?
>butthurt
Where am I butthurt?

>>2731148
>I've got more squere miles of nothing than you

>>2732196
>Only way there's a huge difference is the fact that the Parthians/Persians kept their capital within a stone's throw of the shared border; Ctesiphon being less then 60 kilometers from Roman/Byzantine frontier and the Parthians generally being very passive and fighting defensive wars against Romans aggression 90% of the time.
Yeah that was definitely a disadvantage to the Persians. Their empire was more compact instead of the far-flung reaches that Rome was. And the fact that the Parthian and Sassanid capitals were close to Romen forward bases in the Levant and Anatolia was a nightmare.

What made the Persians stand toe-to-toe with the Romans was the fact that the Tigris and Euphrates valleys were constantly maintained with irrigation, thus bringing in high yields of crops. Not to mention their access to the mineral resources of Central Asia or how they were a conduit of trade between Rome and China/India.

>>2731079
>there Subutai.....look at all this....nothing we've conquered!

>>2732307
Well also helped heavier populations of Iranic people used in the Parthian and Sassanid empires lay east-ward of Iraq in the Iranian plateau and the western areas of Central Asia, which the Romans/Byzantines never really got close to.

Kind of wish though someone like Khosrow I or Shapur the Great had moved the capital further eastwards to make it better defensible.

>>2732351
Honestly, I would've moved the capital to Bukhara or Samarkand. Anything in Iraq and Iran itself is too close to the warzone.

File: WorldmapperPopulationCartogram2011.jpg (581KB, 1500x763px)

581KB, 1500x763px

What we need are population maps similar to pic related superimposed by empires of the era

>>2732433
Pre-modern estimates are pretty iffy though, that's why you see so much divergence between sources. And in that case any entity controlling the big riverine systems in Egypt-Mesopotamia, South and East Asia is going to come out on top usually, population-wise.

>>2732372
Iran itself is fine once you go east of the Zagros mountains. I think there's literally all of one singular time the Romans/Byzantines actually got onto the Iranian plateau and that was Trajan and it wasn't even against the Persians but the Parthians/Parni of the Arscaid dynasty. But either way I think the whole reason they kept Ctesiphon was just as a symbolic "FUCK YOU" to the Romans/Byzantines.

Bukhara, Smarkand, Dagestan, etc...all are good choices.

>>2731079
Tell me about architecture, culture, law that Horde left for further generations.

>>2731079
>huge swathes of land with nothing
>only precious land is Syria and crossroads in the silkroad
>gets rekt by Timur

>resource rich Europe and Mediterranean
>secure borders and buffer states
>dense forest that prohibits steppe horse warfare
>countless port trade cities
>can self sustain without a single trade route

Nice try tho.

>>2732540
Dude, I may not think much of the Mongol Empire in terms of cultural legacies and monuments compared to Rome, but they straddled the richest parts of Asia sans India. The Mongols facilitated even greater movement in goods, ideas, and travelers across highways.

>>2731079
>Roman Empire
>Conquered other powerful civilizations like Egypt, Carthage, and Greece
>Subdued the notoriously difficult to rule people in Gaul and Britain
>lasts for over 2 thousand years

>Mongol horde
>conquers literally nobody of importance outside of the significantly weakened and divided China
>get utterly BTFO by India
>get annihilated by Egypt at Ayn Jalut
>doesnt even conquer fucking Novgorod
>fails to conquer even ONE castle in fucking Hungary
>claims victory and runs away from god damn wooden castles claiming its because MUH KHAN DIED BUT WE WOULD HAVE WON EVENTUALLY I SWEAR GUYZ
>comes back to Hungary and does even worse, get annihilated next time as well
>fucking Hungary
>lasts literally 162 years, not even a tenth as long as Rome

File: Mongol Empire Progress.gif (162KB, 752x591px) Image search: [Google]

162KB, 752x591px

>>2731079
>Steppeniggers.
>Ruling past a generation or two before infighting and collapse ensues.

>'mongols only controlled insignificant areas!'
>there are people on /his/ who don't realise how significant West and Central Asia were in the 13th century

>>2733509
Shut the frick up, kid.

>>2733509
I dont think anyone would argue that China is a significant conquest, but the pretty laughably short amount of time that they held it makes it insignificant that the Mongols were even there.
Apart from China though, the Mongols conquered pretty much nothing important except for maybe some parts of the Levant.
Its an empire filled of 90% fucking nothing whereas the Roman Empires conquests were largely all significant.

Did the Roman Empire maintain its stature and power because of the switch from senatorial republic to imperial monarchy, or in spite of it?

Did the republic simply do such a good job of establishing the underlying structure of Rome that even centuries of unfit emperors couldn't do anything to fuck it up?

>>2733535
Because of it. Without imperial authority Rome would have tore itself apart far sooner than the fall of Constantinople.

File: Yuan Dynasty Theater.jpg (2MB, 1160x1299px)

2MB, 1160x1299px

>>2731079
>Rome Collapses.
>Everyone it ruled cherishes its memory.
>"We wuz Romuns n sheid."

>Mongol empire disintegrates
>World breathes a sigh of relief.
>Even you guys consider your ancestors nothing better than niggers and go "We is Persians" "We iz Chinese" instead.

>>2732061
did they wage war?

>>2733551
>Modern Mongolians use Chinese writing system
Mongols left literally nothing of value behind. Easily the most overrated "empire"

>>2733531
>Iran is unimportant
>Bukhara, Samarkand, and the Ferghana Valley are unimportant

>>2731079
Classic case of technically true, but misleading.

>>2731178

Lmao no.

Before the 1800's, China Proper or the Indian Subcontinent could each match the productivity of all of Europe. The Industrial revolution is what really elevated European productivity. The Hapsburgs never even had control of half of Europe.

The most powerful empire as a proportion to the rest of the world is probably Rome circa 100AD.

>>2733557

Well they did, before they got rolled by the Russians.

Now Mongolians use Cyrillic to write their language that doesn't sound remotely Cyrillic, replaceing their unique vertical script designed for Mongolian.

Another reason of why Subutai should have killed the entire population of Kievan Rus.

Alas, he didn't.

>>2731079
Rome's greatness lies in its everlasting legacy. Not in the mass of land they controlled.

>>2733578
>Khwarezmid
>relevant
what the fuck are you talking about?
>Bukhara
just a stop on the silk road friendo. Silk roads existence was not dependent on fucking Bukhara, other way around.
>Samarkand
irrelevant capital of irrelevant empire. City wasnt worth jack shit until Timur built it up.
>Ferghana Valley
and what did the mongols do with it? Fucking nothing. Its farmland. Do you even know how Mongols lived?

>>2732186
They weren't populated after the conquest. Iranian historians (obviously biased) claim some places didn't reach pre-mongol populations until the 20th century.

File: 1434857225406.jpg (85KB, 900x675px)

85KB, 900x675px

>>2731144
>The Roman Empire lasted 2000 years

>The Roman Empire lasted 2000 years
top ses

>>2733772
>>2733755
It literally did
Now if you want to say that a lot of those years after the fall of the western half werent pretty, fair enough.

File: 1492815769137.jpg (138KB, 1005x1440px)

138KB, 1005x1440px

>>2733412
>>2733438
>>2733557

Others have debunked this, but I'll kick the bait riddled dead horse.
>Rule over a large area full of fuck-all for a hundred years, then collapse and die
Or...
>Rule over a less large, but undoubtably massive area for over a millennium, having to deal with hard-to-suppress tribes numbering in the hundreds of thousands alongside some of the world's strongest powers, all the while making amazingly large advancements in fields from law to architecture to military strategy, essentislly defining global civilization for the rest of its existence.

I love how so many of you get butthurt about historical comparisons, as if any of you actually have contributed an iota of work of what has been done. Similar to the rich kid who feels he's the shit because of his relation to another man. (father)

"My culture is better! My history is more rich! My my my" bullshit.

Ain't shit yours kid.

>>2733685
Persia was literally the middle grounds of the Silk Road, on top of that it was the cultural and academic center of the Islamic world as well as one of the most progressive and urbanized parts of the said Muslim world. It has nothing to do with the Turkic rulers antagonizing the Mongols, the entire Iranian area was of massive economic and social importance.

>>2733896
t. nigger

File: this_triggers_the_roach.png (92KB, 1701x251px) Image search: [Google]

92KB, 1701x251px

>>2733755
>>2733772

>>2733896
If you dont want to talk about historical comparisons why are you even on this board?
Why are you assuming everyone ITT is posting the way they are because they feel attached to Rome?
Did it ever occur to you that people who give a shit about history would feel the need to discuss this comparison?
>>2733920
I still fail to see how Persia was even remotely relevant during the time of the Mongols. Middle ground of the silk road or not the golden age of that world was long gone.
I think its hilarious that you are trying to imply the silk road was significant because of Persia. It was significant because of Europe and China. Mostly China.

>>2731385
/thread

The Mongol """"""""""Horde""""""""" lol probably about twelve people lived in that square footage.

Not much of a horde. lmao

>>2731148
>Tierra del Fuego

>>2734121
>I still fail to see how Persia was even remotely relevant during the time of the Mongols.
Maybe you should research it then.
>trying to imply the silk road was significant because of Persia
Except I never said that either, you super dumbass.

>empire
>nothing but brown people
What's the point?

>>2734121
Even despite massacres committed against the Khwarazemian or however the fuck its spelled empire, Persia controlled a huge portion of Central Asia. Which had a fuck ton of urbanized development, art centers, academics of philosophy and medical advancements, and so on. If you think Persia was just a place with lots of people and nothing else you are dumb.

>>2734549
so you agree that Persia was irrelevant by the time the Mongols got around to it?
>>2734650
Again i am not disputing that this region was once great, but like i said before, the golden age was long gone. It was stagnant and dying when the Mongols showed up
Baghdad was the last remaining "Persian" great city. The power of the muslim world had gradually shifted westward and you're an idiot if you think otherwise

File: 1491078765515.jpg (45KB, 287x317px)

45KB, 287x317px

>>2733681
The Mongol Horde also had a lasting legacy - connecting far east and western cultures, and then there's also the black plague.

>>2735026
No, that's literally not even what that anon said.

>>2731385
>Roman Empire
>1000 years
It is 1500 if you don't even include the Roman Republic and Roman Kingdom.

>>2732279
and don't you forget it, wanker

>>2733946
>>2735237

If you guys are going to count the Byzantines as a continuation of the Roman Empire then the Shaybanid Khanate of Khiva, direct descendants of Jochi, Ghengis's eldest son, ruled until 1920

So in what fantasy world are we pretending the Mongols ever actually held southern China, Northern Indo China, Taiwan or Northern Russia?

>>2731193
Don't copy-paste my posts faggot.

>>2731134
That's why the British Empire was the greatest in history. They ruled most of humanity.

>>2736610
same fantasy world where Roman Empire lasted 1000 years.

>>2737260
Sorry but the Persians and Romans objectively were superior empires to the Brits. Size? Sure that's nice but duration? No way in hell.

>>2737387
>509 BC to 476 AD (WRE)
>985+ years
>"Not a thousand years lol"

Autist.

>>2734563
>empire
>nothing but barbarous non-Romans
What's the point?

>>2736575
Goddamn, the 1920's were just the fucking end of Monarchies, like some massive global purge of kings.

>>2731161
Most of France, Britain and anything North or East of the Rhine was very depopulated. they were pretty much just nomadic tribes.

>>2731243
Considering that it didn't even last more than a generation, its not very impressive

>>2731134
Protip: It all became unpopulated because of the Mongols

>>2733412

>beat by India

When and the mongols weren't even trying at Ayn Jalut. There was a mongol civil war going on and their focus was on that

>>2736610

They did though, Except for northern russia

File: mVkXYjL_d.jpg (64KB, 640x403px)

64KB, 640x403px

>>2731079

>>2731144
Society wouldn't have had nearly ad much syncretism without the Mongols that might be a much larger contribution than you'd think

>>2738564
I fucking love it.

File: 》Monarchists.jpg (30KB, 600x716px)

30KB, 600x716px

>>2738564
Monarchies btfo

>>2737784
Im pretty sure Roman EMPIRE started somewhere around ~70BC when Augustus came to power

>>2738564

(((Coincidence)))

>>2740425
Wrong. Transitioning from a republic to a principate does not make it an empire, it already was one since the before the start of the first Punic War with Carthage.

File: 1482074116263.jpg (354KB, 567x790px)

354KB, 567x790px

>>2739938

Le Pen will lose and your country is going to pay manifold for all its wrongdoings.

The day of the sickle is coming fleur-de-lis

>>2732540
>>can self sustain without a single trade route

Is that why the later europeans tried to find a way to India and China without crossing muslims lands?

Remember the time when the bongs tried to trade with China and they replied with:

>our country has everything, we don't need to trade with your resourceless Islands

?

>>2736610
>held southern China

Are you a retard? a quick look at the Yuan Dynasty map will solve your issues.

>>2731079
how many cities on each side?

>>2740984

50 million people in China alone at that time, that means there were alot of big cities there.

>>2740991
that just raises more questons, I mean from a population that large how could they not have the manpower to resist the mongols in the first place?

>>2740984
Before the Mongols? I would say more in the eastern half, even without India: all of the chinese cities, the central asian ones, the Indus valley, Persia plus Mesopotamia, Russia.

>>2741003

The romans had a bigger manpower pool then the persians as well as a bigger empire and they still didn't manage to conquer them completely.

>>2741045
yes but the roman military was a expansionist and occupational force, unable to be deployed fully at one place and time, wasnt china unified for centuries at this point?

>>2741051

It wasn't unified at that there, the Mongols attacked the Jin who were fighting and Sung

>>2740973
That's funny, I remember this attitude coming back to bite them square on the ass.

>>2731385
>separating the Roman Empire and Byzantine empire as if they were two separate states, but puts the Arcaid and Sasanid dynasties as one
Okay...

>>2736575
There's no reason to not count the """Byzantine""" empire as not the Roman empire. The only reason people even do so is because of 18th century historians a la Edward Gibbon.

File: 1471297632988.gif (380KB, 457x340px)

380KB, 457x340px

>>2740960
I'm not French.

>>2731079
literally fucking grass

>>2733509
its futile to teach /his tourists about the intellectual and economic importance of central asia of that time

>>2731079
>hurr durr muh desert nomad empire is bigger than le Rome xD
Mongolia collapsed after just a few emperor deaths, it's not that impressive.

>>2741184
The only change between those two is literally a dynastic change. Nothing about the structure, governing, or language changed between the transition from the Arsacid dynasty with the Sassanid dynasty.

The Arsacid-Sassanid dynasties were just the final two dynastic lineages governing pre-Islamic Iranic peoples. You complain about this then I don't see why people can't complain about dynastic changes in ruling the Byzantine empire.

>>2742224
The Arsacid dynasty spoke Parthian not Persian

>>2742230
The Arsacid dynasty spoke and wrote in Pahlavi, just like the Sassanid dynasty did, anon. Parni are also closely related to the Persians, given that Parthia was the direct province right next to and adjacent to Pars. They dressed the same way, followed the same customs, wrote in the same script, continued Iranian traditions the Achaemenids did before them, used the same style of inscriptions and rock reliefs, and even minted their coins and issues the same way the Achaemenids and Medes did before them.

>>2742230
Parthian language is closely related to Persian, and both dynasties used the Pahlavi script which was based off and heavily inspired by one of the Aramic written systems for their written language. Parthian Seven Houses were also the main military institution for governing and commanding armies for the Sassanids just like they had before for the Arsacids.

We might not know that much about how the Parthian language diverged from the Persian language but their writing systems were the same. On top of that, the Sassanid dynasty was a centralized confederation of high ranking noble houses just like the Arsacid dynasty had been before it.

The change from the those two dynasties is really no different then Leonid and Macedonian dynasties that ruled the ERE/Byzantine empire.

>>2742294
>>2742312
I had always heard that the Arsacids were really disorganized compared to the Sassanids, but I guess that's wrong

>>2742345
They weren't disorganized compared to the Sassanids. They were just less centralized then the Sassanids. There's a noted heavy influx of the Great Kings of the Sassanids putting family members in other kingships as vassal lords of client states and retaining a stronger force then their subordinates in the Seven Houses of Parthia, the Parthians didn't really do this as much and the Grandees had much more power in election of new commanders in their armies as well as nominees for Kingship then the Sassanids experienced vs the Arsacids.

Think of it in RPG terms:

Typical Sassanid ruler has +10 to authority
Typical Arsacid ruler has only +6 to authority

>>2740982

>Are you a retard? a quick look at the Yuan Dynasty map will solve your issues.
>Yuan Dynasty map (dream sheet) with most of later Siam and Khmer kingdoms highlighted
>Implying the Yuan ever actually exercised control or authority over any of the southern "administrative provinces"
>Chinese believe this
>we wuz

>>2743459
>southern China
>Siam and Khmer kingdoms highlighted
Burger education

>>2742224
I'm not complaining about the Arsacid-Sassanid dynasties, I'm complaining about lumping them as one, but separating The Roman Empire in two, even though there was absolutely no structural, governing or language change. Rome was increasingly speaking Greek as the Empire had been increasingly gravitating itself around Anatolia/Syria

>>2744421
Forgot to add, the fact that Diocletian had to make laws trying to curb Greek shows that by the end of the Crisis of the third century (or rather following the granting of citizenship to all freeborn people born in the empire and the growth of Christianity), Greek took off and was rapidly replacing Latin. Had the empire not lost Italy, etc Greek still would have become the spoken language of the Empire.

File: lmao.png (94KB, 359x3107px) Image search: [Google]

94KB, 359x3107px

> it's empire power levels thread episode

>>2744421
What you were complaining about was trying to attack the structure of how Iranianologists have always cohesively seen the Iranian Empire of the 3rd century BC to mid-7th century AD. I'll repeat again, the only difference is the ruling family, nothing else between that changes when the ruling clan goes from being the Arsacids to the Sassanids. Same area, same language, same structure, same government, same culture. They get "lumped" together because of that.

>>2731385
>>2742224

So the Bolsheviks were just a continuation of Tsarist Russia?

You act like dynastic change is a minor issue when it's literally one of the main ways we distinguish between empries (Ummayad-Abbasid; Samanid-Ghazvanid; etc.)

>>2744970
Then the WRE and the ERE should also be lumped together by that same criteria.

Iraniboos just can't handle the fact that while the Persians were bent over the table by Muslim cock, Rome resisted and survived for another millennium.

>>2742073

Everyone should know to give Gavelkind the finger and use a less retarded succession law.

>>2733940
kek

>>2733894
>essentislly defining global civilization for the rest of its existence.
This. Few people actually realize how much Romans contributed to the cultures that followed. You can troll about hurpdurp muh landmass all you want, but no other empire/culture has done as much as Romans did.

>>2731079
>Horde
>Empire

>>2746156
>le romans invented shit meme
topkek they stole everything from greeks and never innovated anything

>>2746229
based retard

>>2746030
This is a nonsensical red herring. There is nothing continuous between the Reds taking Russia vs the Romanov dynasty in Imperial Russia.

>>2746036
>Rome resisted and survived for another millennium
>Rome: 476 AD ends WRE
>Constantinople: ERE, reduced to a rump state by the mid-13th century, permanently loses 2/3rds of its territory to Arabs within less then a century.
What's with this bait?

>>2746030
Not him but: the Bolsheviks had they been a new Imperial family/established dynasty like the Romanovs would've been a continuation of Tsarist Russia.

Communist Russia however:

>is not a dynasty
>is not an empire/imperial state
>is anti-religious/atheistic
>completely altered Russia's military and civil government processes and methods

Comparatively the Arsacids and Sassanids is just one dynasty replacing another that share the same language, ethnic background, culture, religion, organization, and so on.

>>2746036
>Persians were bent over by Muslim cock
Why can't Araboos handle the fact that the Iranian Intermezzo period decisively broke the Arabs power for good? You had an Arab Empire that ended with the Umayyads and became a pan-Muslim Empire under the Abbasids for a few centuries and then were never of anything of relevance again.