What led Rome and Parthia to be mutually antagonistic towards

Armenia

>>3161354
Yes, but Armenia ceased to exist in 428 AD as it was absorbed by Parthia and Rome yet hostilities continued. Most notibly with Khosrau I being a thorn in Justinian's side and the Byzantine–Sasanian War of 602–628 that all but crippled both states only to maintain a status quo half a century later.

>>3161349
Roman didn't play nice with anybody until they were conquered.

File: 1485582164656.jpg (296KB, 900x850px) Image search: [Google]

296KB, 900x850px

>>3161917
>Parthia
>Sasanian Empire
>different

>>3161349
they were just expansive empires being expansive empires towards one another

same with the grudge between France and England

>>3161349
They're powerful and close to each other. That's literally all you need.

>>3161988
They are essentially still the same entity though. The transition of Rome from republic to empire warrants little in terms of distinction and I don't see the transitioning of Parthia to the Sassanian Empire to be much different. Even if foreign policy was more aggressive under most emperors in Sassanian Empire.

File: beovTRG.jpg (243KB, 1080x1349px) Image search: [Google]

243KB, 1080x1349px

>be big empire
>instead of expanding and conquering small retarded and disorganised tribes attack the greatest power know to you
>even if you win you barely gain anything in the long run
shitlords did it all for personal glory and triumph

>>3162005
to be fair the Parthians weren't all that powerful in comparison. They were just very far away. Sure there was the BTFOing of Crassus but subsequent wars usually favored the Romans.

The Sassanids on the other hand

>>3161391
>428 AD
>Parthia exists