also the americans were based off another EXTREMELY successfulrepublic, the swiss.
the medieval swiss have alot in common with early america, the fairly isolationist thinking, the wish to rely purely on there being a armed populace, and the swiss republic is quire old dating i think to the 14th-15th centuries.
Yeah usually more armor as well. However there are technical issues.horse armor are still pretty expensive nowadays.Unless the guy wanna put tinfoil pieces around his horse its not gonna happen and its not going to look good.
Otherwise the clip captures the travelling warrior quiet well, usually people wear lighter stuff when they are scouting out terrain.
that was the job of lighter horse. the cataphract ad one very simple job, which we associate now with the kn9ight in shining armour.
form a line or a block, and simply crush or impale anything stupid enough to get close. thes4e gys were quite frankly tanks, wearing several layers of armour. but also occasionally had many of their ranks equiped with throwing darts and bows, they moved in VERY densely bpacked formations i dont think they even galloped
looking at your helm and armour i have to ask, as a cataphract... is that it?? werent cataphractts usually ALOT better armoured that seems to be the armour NON cataphract cavalry would have had?
even roman infantry had a shirt of maile. contrast with from roman clibinarii you seem pretty underarmoured
@elgostine Well, actually, romans adopted the heavy cataphract armor after Crasus of Rome invaded the Parthian empire and was defeated by their heavily armored cataphracts.
@gorgealaki yes the roman klibinarii were late roman developments adopted around the time of the 2nd/3rd century AD and whos use coninued in the earstern empiere for 1000 years under the byzantnes.
Average size of Roman army of 1stB.C. to 2nd A.D. = 500,000 to 750,000 and this probably not including internal regional guards. 300,000 of them were the legions (i.e. available for mobility). Guess that they had also ALL the Mediterranean under control (which aided a lot eh!)
Average size of Byzantine army for half the Empire = 50,000 to 120,000 men ALLTOGETHER. Them, they faced more enemies in 10 years than Romans in 100. They lasted 1000 years. That is efficiency!
@notgodsemigod Persians NO WAY were anywere close to the loserness (in tactical terms always, since politically Romans were the absolute masters, ensuring 100,000s of masses thrown into their expansionist wars, always by alliance of local oligarchies). Persians, while not matching the records of the ancient Greek armies (an Empire in 11 years) had taken much less than Romans to built their Empire defeating a long list of powerful enemies including some Greeks too. And they were back for more!
@notgodsemigod its also worth notig that alexander that while he had less land then the romans , it took hm 11 years to take it, it was also almost gone in about 100 years. the romans were much more effective inholding onto their lands, much better engineers and better seigecraft. they were also the few people to employ field artillery, each cohort had a number of aroww catapaults assigned to them like modern regiments with their heavy machine gunner and portable mortar crews
@elgostine I myself have a saying: by the time Romans learned how to fight effectively they had actually already been mutated into Byzantines (i.e. it was just an army manned by Armenians and Greeks fighting the Greco-Persian way (i.e. combination of long-spear hoplites and cataphracts), with some Gothic additions... Prior to that, Romans were just a bunch of nearly 1 million half-trained badly armed losers who had lost ALL their first-contact battles winning campaigns only by massive numbers.
badly armed? losers? these guys were capable of a great deal of combat flexibility, with multiple formations, on he battlefield and were one of THE MOST organised, this isnt huff and puff either, the fact that no matter whre in the empire soldiers camp was alway exactly the same
and.. might i add the romans were, to my mind the ONLY civilization in history to uniformly equip its army in metal armour
@elgostine By the way, now we mentioned it, it is true that for good or for bad (and certainly for the inaccurate), Persians were too often historically described as ineffective warriors or Asiatic cowards or a pompous ineffective army which of course is far far from reality.... actually the most acclaimed army of antiquity, the Romans was 10 times worse than the Persians (eg. Persians had won all theri first-contact battles, this including against Greeks) while Romans had lost ALL theirs.
@notgodsemigod well The Wars Of The Ancient Greeks By Victor Davis Hanson, looking at the changes and the factors behnd the changes in greek wwarfare methods, particularly, noting for the battle of marathon in particular, that the persian way of warfare, light infantry skirmishers, and little armour seemsed unable to resist the lumbering cloumns of hoplites in thick broze and linothorax, large solid aspis, helmets (which seem conspicuously absent from persian warriors of the same period. ) etc.
@elgostine The time period he represents is - I think (from the basic knowledge I have) - the early Sassanid period (i.e. early 3th century). If you see, the armour used is not of the type "full cover" (there existed already this but became more widely used in late 4th century), it is of mail-shirt, which is an adoption from Romans (Parthians used also mail but mostly used the traditional Persian scale male). The representation is very good.
Persia would never again pose a threat to the Empire. But soon after Heraclius's triumphal return to Byzantium, bearing the fragments of the True Cross, Muslim armies swarmed out of Arabia seizing Damascus and a majority of Syria. Arab armies soon advanced upon Ctestiphon and dethroned the last Sasanian Shah (can't remember the name off the top of my head), who fled with his family to what is now Far Western China.
Syria, even advancing as far as Jerusalem in the 7th century and burning the Church of the Holy Sepulcher (which was later rebuilt). Sasanian strength and resources were strained considerably during the reign of the Byzantine Emperor Heraclius. After 6 years campaigning in Southern Armenia and Mesopotamia and utterly depleting Persian military strength Heraclius successfully incited enough hatred amongst the subjects of the reigning Shah Chroroes to have him dethroned and murdered by his own son
Good video. It's a bit difficult to find any material on Sasanian Persia. Not many scholars of the period, sadly. Although I've seen alot of comments regarding the Sassinids being Muslims which is not true. The Sassinid Empire was founded by Ardashir I in 224 A.D. (roughly 500 years before the birth of Muhammad) and was conquered by Arab armies in 651 A.D. Throughout its 400 year history, they were a considerable menace on Rome's Eastern frontier. Continually sacking Antioch and devastating
As a proud Persian, and Zoroastrian enthusiast, I must say to the less educated:
Persians were the basic ideology of the modern day Americans, but with a bit more nobility in their culture. Both have religious freedom, women had a choices (even serving in the army) and even a pure form of democracy (unlike in the us) and believe me, we were very excellent artists... so do please read your unbiased history texts, and you'll know what I'm talking about...
As a proud Persian, and Zoroastrian enthusiast, I must say to the less educated:
Persians were the basic ideology of the modern day Americans, but with a bit more nobility in their culture. Both have religious freedom, women had a choices (even serving in the army) and even a pure form of democracy (unlike in the us) and believe me, we were very excellent artists... so do please read your unbiased history texts, and you'll know what I'm talking about...
@wolfboythe6th91 i asked because i'm curious if it was similar to rules of old slavians(before christianity)...so more details will be apprectiated :)
@uioe well, if you did something wrong like stealing, we shave your ass (hair from head to toe, is shaved off with daggers) and it's pretty much a better America. let people be people, and yet we give them protection and maintain a certain order that the Persians felt comfy about. I'm not sure about the taxes though, but we were far superior than Islam (we didn't force our beliefs on other people, nor kill innocents for not worshiping. For anything, we fought for the innocents)...
@wolfboythe6th91 the american system was never a pure democracy from the start it was intendedto be modelled off the republics of venice and holland, among others. its also very similar to the english parlimentary system which is used in my country bar a few minor differences. only with a areligous clause to prevent the massive religous persecutions happening in the other european kingdoms of the time.
the american problem is due quite simply to the powers that be having misplaced priorities
"the noble democracy","free election"(king was chosen by votes of all nobles),"freedom of religion" of Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth(in polish Rzeczypospolita-res publika)
more about that here-->watch?v=3OoSdnebLxw Norman Davies 1:20
Gentlemen, please refrain from making rude comments. I did not place this up here to start a cultural war.
About me, I am a Zoroastrian Persian. That is me in the video with all of the armor I made on my horse. The music is not Arabic. Also, I made this video simply to show what a Sassanian Cataphract looked like and to put up a proper representation of a Persian. Something different than what the media likes to portray us as.
Please, I ask everyone to be respectful towards others.
@equusvideo if your talking about 300, id like to point out that while the persians are shown as utter monsters, they dont exactly paint anyone else as being particularly flattering either,
the athenians are described as being philosophers and boy lovers, implying their pansies of sorts, the ephors are inbred traitors, the 'assembly' are seen as indecisive, the other greek warriors as unprofessional brawlers. and not really soldiers.
only leonidis and his men are shown in a good light.
@elgostine As for the 300, you are absolutely right. Do not think that in Greece the film convinced anyone beyond the still unknowledgeable 12-years boys (you see here in youtube screaming "Leonidas!"). In reality in Greece there was a huge uproar as to the historic inaccuracy and the belittling details which you precisely mentioned and yes, we did not find at all amusing the representation of Persians as gay: Greeks have respect for an old nation such as Persians.
@notgodsemigod persians as gay? asid from xerxes being androgynous in looks and his girlsd in his tent schmoosing up to eac other, theres no mention either wa of the persians attitudes.
@elgostine Gay, not just in the sense of homosexual but in the street sense - as the term "gay" is used not just for homosexuals but also for people whose overall stance is not proud, not manly, not self-respecting etc. etc. I understand that a homosexual might disagree with that kind of use of the word but it has long been used in language but then what can the men and women of the island of Lesbos (i.e. the Lesbians!) say ? Hence, indeed Persians were presented as "gay".
@elgostine The film "Alexander" was even less well accepted having represented the hugest Greek in history who happens also to be the hugest man in human history, as a neurotic homosexual ... immense gayness. At least "300" did not claim to be history, "Alexander" claimed to present history which is worse.
There is absolutely no historic text that ever mentioned Alexander as homosexual. Texts mentioned that he had 7 official wifes plus concubines (and 1 official kid and other 2-3 bastard ones)
@notgodsemigod alexander WAS actually quite neurotic, one writer thinks that hitler in alot of ways makes the best analogue due to his high tech army, great charismati abilityrapid conquest, as well, as an obsession with personal greatness, and the fact he ended up killing many of his generals out of paranoia (no this isnt from the movie) and also that his conquests caused the deaths of tens or even hundreds of thousands and millions displaced.
@equusvideo wait thats you? omg thats awesome, where do you live? I wish I had armor like that. I have a complete samurai suit, but its falling apart at this point. Anyway GREAT video, Ive made a couple vids about Persia, kewl to see a sassanid armor like this, which is rare.
@equusvideo When Iran will become Zaroastrian again? Is it possible to your opinion? Cause I am quete a big fan of the Assyrians and Iranians, but not evil islamic Iranians...
@equusvideo Man, you rule! Your representation of a Persian cataphract is very good and very respectful to the long history of the Persian nation (call it Persian, Iranian, Parthian, Median, however! - ancient nations like us Greeks do have many names - us, we have Greeks, Hellenes, Ionians, Macedonians, Dorians, Aeolians etc. etc.).
It is hightime Persians do their come back! And this time Greeks will be their friends!
Awesome =) YEH FUCking stupid ARABAS it´s saddens me that one great civilization fallen to those desert rats fuck them WHEN qestion to the persian there are a lot of zoroasther? or the majority of the people follows islam? Oh btw very pretty girl =)
Awesome =) YEH FUCking stupid ARABAS it´s saddens me that one great civilization fallen to those desert rats fuck them WHEN qestion to the persian there are a lot of zoroasther? or the majority of the people follows islam?
the late roman n byzantium empire later adopted parthian n sassanids heavy cavalry tactics,they even copy parthian n sassanid heavy cavalry,if you check later roman armies,they look more like a parthian or sassanid army than a julius caesar type roman army,the late romans now fielded huge amount of heavy cavalry n horse archers,they also fielded more light infantryman than heavy infantryman that resembles the legion,sassanid cavalry were label by some historian as a model for european knights.
Actually if you would study the roman army in detail, since it's existence they adopted the weapons of almost all their neighbours. First the etruscan type hoplite weapons, then in republican times adopted the oscan scutum, the iberian gladius, the montefortino helmet and lorica hamata (chainmail) from the celts/celtiberians. Then in imperial times they adopted the imperial gallic helmets, oval shield. Their success is largely due to their ability to use the innovation of other peoples.
parthians n sassanids held off the romans n the only empire that the roman face that they never occupied,the romans av this dream of surpassing alexander the great in the east,they av this vision of the roman empire stretch all the way to india,but in the end,the farthest the romans go in the east is what is today iraq during the roman emperor trajan times,but he never fully stabilize western parthia either,rebellions are popping out in towns n cities trajan takes n he failed to captured hatra.
Persian Muslim Knights continued the tradition, just like the rest of the Islamic world that became Muslim, however keeping their own culture and customs. Islam is a dynamic faith that allows for it's host nation to retain it's glory. I am an Iranian Muslim who is descended from Persian Warrior Class, infact the last ones that stopped the Arab invasion. My ancestors converted to Islam by the Love of the Prophet's family, not by the sword. The Arab warriors never made it to where I am from.
Western knights were a copy of cataphracts but with lighter armour (1 or 2 layers, very rarely 3). While they were very capable fighters they did not have the training and professionalism of Byzantine cataphracts, thus I think they would lose on most occasions.
Just note that by the time western armies arrived in the east, the proper Byzantine army did not exist as the Byzantine Emperors (Komnenians) preferred to maintain small mercenary armies (including the crusaders themselves of course!).
@papagamias The germanic francish panzerreiters and the later medieval knights were also very trained warriors and I think they were at least so effective as the cataphracts of the Persians or the Eastromans....
Also very good were the heavy cavalry of the Goths
Heavy cavalry units were known. But the original cataphracts were organised by Parthian and Sassanide Itanians. So successful that late Romans or early Byzantines if you want copied them.
Byzantines had lots of heavy units including the clibanarii but the cataphracts were their elite. Most of them were not Greeks but Armenians, no wonder! Armenians live next to Iranians.
They added a 3rd layer becoming impenetrable. Imagine them with 10 arrows on them & fighting! - there were accounts of this
Parthians in Iran used Cataphract, theirs was very much like knights in shining armor and they used a Joust as well. The Pathians were Iranian but not Persian and their denisty predates the Sassanids.
Persians couldn't use infantry because they were fighting all over borders (west roman , south arabs and egyptian, east middle asian troops ,north east mognol and others like hauns and north barbarian troops ) so they need a very fast army who could serve all over persia. BTW because Persian cities where farther from each other than romans and also dry big deserts in central parts they need horses to move and survive.
death to allah,may our beloved persia return back to zoroastrinism,the arabs destroyed evrythin in persia,go n read persecution of zoroastrains on wikipedia n u'll c the real face of these lizard infested arabs n what they did to our people killed more than 25 million zoroastrians,fuck u stupid arab the persians will eliminate ya frm this planet,we'll take revenge for our zoroastrain brothers n sisters tht u slaved n killed mercilessly,sassanids will rule persia again
Sassanid Cataphracts used the most longest and powerful spear ever in world history known as kontos.
It was at least 4 meters long and even longer than 6 examples may have existed. Romans, Goths and Vandals used shorter Kontos (About 3.5 meters) but only highly trained cavalrymen such as those fielded by the Arsaco-Sassanian dynasties could have used such weapons.
And I am not saying this out of hatred towards iran as a country or its people. I am saying this out of annoyance and disguist to people like you who favour their pagan predecessors over the Muslims who bled to bring them Islam.
@amadeus987 well, many of those generals were really unexperienced, besides, the arabs used persian millitary technology and strategy.
The sassanids were also to busy, with rome,
and alos weakened, but yes the arabs had good infantry, but they were not equal to roman legions or sassanid elites, and they did hire troops, and they never conquered the deylamites, and also rostam were inexperienced in battle, the arabs did hire troops when fighting sassanids. arabs=animals got nothing to be proud of
Persianshitbomb, youre a racist piece of scum. Even though Arabs used Sassanid equipment and strategies, it was their devotion towards spreading Allah's word on earth that made them bring down the pagan sassanids. They might not have had the equipment or training of the legionairres, but they fought with dedication and that is what made them superior warriors. No matter what you say or do you cannot hide this fact. History will always be a testament of Islam's glory and victory over the pagans.
u arabs really do not have anything to be proud of
u arabs are one of the most barbaric people in human history, with no background at all, u Deny that? u are probably a stupid arab which thinks that u are the best, u cant even clean ur dirty shithole u retard.... and yes, I am a racist, if u say it so...and i am not denying that fact.. arab solders were pretty wild and ill-disciplined, and retarded.. roman legions were much better and sassanid elites
You fire worshiping scum. I have endured your insults on arabs. But once you try to insult Allah your creator and sustainer you have crossed the line. I will not speak to scum like you and I assure you that unless you repent you shall spend eterniity in hellfire. May the curse of Allah be upon you
No, may the curse of Allah or whoever he is, be upon u barbarian arabs, who killed innocent people, u arabs really dissapointed him by killing his creations.,. and yeah, thats what that kinda spy saw.. they are more than just knights and monks... they are animals.. barbarians... who dissapointed their god... besides... they got small brains comparing to other people...but thats irreleent hehe
i forgot to tell u something, arabs was brainwashed, belivend in some gay god named Allah something.. They really fought because of hunger, because they were barbarians, to kill innocent peopel and rape, to steal, and so on..they did not fight in the name of allah..they were nothing more than retared hordes of barbarians.. and thats a fact, u DENY that? dont use that excuse with spreading some gay gods words on earth.. u dont know a shit about god... jesus...be mature u idiot
Byzantine spy talks about Muslims: "They are knights by day and monks by night. They pay for what they eat in territories under their occupation. They are first to salute when they arrive at a place and are valiant fighters who just wipe out the enemy". Another informant said "During the night it seems they do not belong to this world and have no other business than to pray"
Sassanianprince, My comments were about Muslims defeating pagans. The buyids were muslims, so your comment is irrelevant. And by they way, the Buyids themselves were brought to their knees by the seljuk turks.
There is an immense amount of Iranian/Persian propaganda on these forums. For a scholarly analysis of heavy calvary I refer readers to
"The Development of Roman Mailed Calvary" by John W. Eadie. The clibinarius/cataphractoi were not a Persian invention but an Assyrian invention. The Romans had encountered heavy calvary before in their confrontations with the Ptolemaic successor states in the near east and had crushed them. The Roman defeat at Carrhae is mostly due to bad Roman generalship.
There is little evidence to suggest that the medieval knight was derived from Persian influences. The contrasts between the knight and the cataphractoi are striking. The knight is a versatile, general purpose armored warrior equally at home mounted or on foot. He trades maximum armor protection for mobility both in the saddle and on foot. In contrast, the cataphract is a special purpose warrior who sacrifices mobility (he's useless when dismounted) for maximum armor protection.
Another excellent reference that describes the capabilities and limitations of cataphractoi is:
"Sowing the Dragon's Teeth: Byzantine Warfare in the Tenth Century" by Eric McGeer
Cataphractoi were a weapons system with a specific purpose in mind but were ponderous, inflexible and expensive. They were revived and disbanded numerous times through antiquity depending on need.
the reason of roman's defeat was Parthian's technique of war( attacking and escaping at the same time and firing from behind ...) which is famous as *partizan
and their strong armor which covered all their body and also didn't decrease their movement. all information that i said was written by roman who were enemy of iranian and unfortunately there is no history written by iranian ?( maybe most of libraries were destroyed by invader such as Mongols or history wasn't important for them?)
he is not "aping" anyone. There were many different styles back then. Some Persian nobles kept their hair long and shaved their beards. Some kept both the beard and the hair, and some, kept none
i.e shortly a after the fall of Parthian Empire hellenistic manners (shaved beard and cutted hairs) put on eastern from Mesopotamia (growed and curled hairs), it didn't?
Anyone heard ofthe deylamite infantry? the most professional infantry ever, sassanian heavy infantry, very well noted by the romans, about how well they stood up against roman legions. Also the kalif arabs, considered them to be 100% impossible to defeat, after many tries, to defeat the deylamites..besides, arab armies were very eager to hire those godlike soldiers fighting against sassanids hehe
Well, I wouldnt exaggerate it, but they were quite tough. The mountainous region they fought in was also a factor that left them unconquered for 500 years. But Sughdians (from modern central asia) were also excellent warriors both on foot and mounted.
"impossible to defeat"? The Muslims defeated every army persia had to offer. Khalid never lost a battle. The Sassanian persian army was powerful though. I am not denying this. But the strength of the persian army was the cavalry. Both the light horse archers and the knight-like Savaran.
@amadeus987 the arabs won bevause the sassanians had a inexperienced commander,,
besides, the arabs hired alot of sassanian heavy infantry and roman infantry some times to..
the arabs had a lot of hired sassanian troops
the sassanids had the finest infantry +archers+horse archers+ cavalry + quality bows+ perfect mix of troops in the whole world at that time, their heavy infantry were better than the roman infantry, and the arab infatrny was very crappy...nothing to rely on
Oh really? youre saying the arabs won because the sassanids had an inexperienced commanders. The Muslims won many battles against many different generals. The muslim army defeated rustum's army even though he is regarded by historians as a brilliant general. The muslims defeated the daylamites time and time again, and no the early muslims did not hire the daylkamites. The abassids hired them but that was after Iran was already conquered for a hundred years.
@amadeus987 one more thing.. the arabs did lost all battles against the Deylamites... the kalif, after loosing so many battles, the kalif considered them to be impossible to defeat, but he had wars against byzantines later on, so those deylamites, joined the kalif troops as mercenaries, only because of money.. and they were alos the best infantry in the arab army fighting both against byzantines and sassanids.. they were an elite, much better than arab and roman troops
Also the Arabian infantry was very effective. They defeated better equipped enemies time and time again. This is not just my opinion, it is the opinion of David Nicolle, a leading historian on middle eastern warfare. The muslims conquered iran, they defeated all the persian armies, and made their king flee like a whipped dog. Deal with it!!
The eastern roman empire and later the western empire, started adapting the Iranian military tactics of using heavy cataphracts as a major battle force after seeing their efficiency in the Arascid, Sassanid armies.
American media today is quite biased and madly in love with sandal epics which they associate with the birth of Western civilization. This comment is by no means marginalizing the Greco-Roman contribution to humanity, but rather its a retaliation to one-sided bias of American media.
But another major example, for your information Bjjownsu10, is the battle of Edessa where the Persian Sassanids annihilated the entire 70000 roman army with minimal casualties in the much smaller force. The Persians also captured one of the Gods to the romans, their emperor Valerian, in the same battle. Interestingly enough, even these defeats are reported by Roman-Greek historians whose opinion was undoubtedly biased.
Carrhae is just one example among many of the superior evolution of the Iranian military tactics compared to the Greco-Roman counterpart in late antiquity. In Carrahe, the Parthians were able to crush the 5 times larger Roman force with minimal casualties using cavalry men similar to the one in this video.
The Persians developed the massive heavy cavalries during the Parthian period. The Parthians are a clan of the Persians. Rome eventually hired Parthian and Sassanian defects into its ranks at huge pay rates to build up its heavy cavalry. Parthian and Persian Cataphracts were developed 2nd and extremely early part of the 3rd century BC. Byzantium was not even around. Furthermore, many may refer to the Saramatians. Saramatians were also an Iranian Tribe as well.
@equusvideo, Rome & Byzantine were the same & the Parthians taught a huge lesson to the Roman that came intent on taking iran, the wealthiest man of Rome & his army were sent home barley alive.
@equusvideo Additionally, iranian Sarmatians played key role in formation of proto-Slavs. People who eventually countered hordes of Mongoloids and Semites pouring into middle East and Europe.
@OkurkaBinLadin I don't believe it is sure that iranian Sarmatians were a keyrole to the proto-Slavs....
And the (Rus-)Slavs were ruled for a long time from the Mongoloids.. But later they fought back and they conquer a big part from Asia and they held it untill today...
@equusvideo The Parthiens were an iranian people, but they werent exactly a clan of the persians. Still they considererd themselves heir to the achemenid empire
read books before typing foolish comments, read ammianus marcelinus the roman historican and other roman sources about parthians and later the sassanids both iranian dynasties using armoured heavy cavalry against romans, byzantines began to copy taht cavalry from iranians after roman got defated by iranian heavy cavalry the pushtighbans and immortals many times.
omg thx for your true comment, perhaps you like a book about ELITE sasanian cavalry, it is written by DR KAVEH FARROKH, just google his name,
even in the battle of gaugamela persians used heavy armoured cavalry in the right wing of their army by command of BESSOS, but they didnt use them as main weopn in large scale against the macedonian phalanx , they learned that bitter lesson, in the parthian and sassanid era they used cataphracts as their main weopen
@joseb008 catraphracts were used by the Scythians, Assyrians, Sarmatians, Parthian dynasties, Baktria, Achaemenid Empire, Sakas, Armenia, Seleucids, Pergamenes, the Sassanid Empire and later by Romans and Byzantines
@Ylfordt and you learn how to understand , for the love of the gods .... I meaned that the term ''byzantine'' empire is wrong. The right term is eastroman empire, roman empire or Romania....
@Ylfordt maybe you could not understand exactly what I said because I am not a native english speaker.... you are a joke . Are you a fool don't to understand what I meaned ?
I meaned the ''Byzantine'' term is wrong. The right term is Romania or Eastroman Empire .....
ps. I am not in Totalwars forums.... maybe you should visit a psychologist... he can help you :-)
@Ylfordt thanks , I will have fun :-) . The terminology of ''Byzantium'' is from the modern world. The empire itself has the name Romania or Roman Empire ...
@Ylfordt You fool , fuck off I have not time to speak with a 5 years old wannabe!!!
Leran history and learn how to behave yourself.
You can read to many books and in even in the internet that the term ''Byzantium'' was given from the modern historians. The people of ''Byzantine Empire'' called themselves Romans/Romioi ..
In this view the term ''Byzantium'' is wrong. You are very funny , but please read a book and leave the internet.
Immortals . What other infantry do you know that could use archery, spear , sword/axe at the same time . Persian infantries were divided by different ranks. The ones that faced the Spartans were of 3rd rank yet they wiped them and took Athen.
We had the greatest army from infantry to cavalry throughout all dynasties however the problem was we relied on the same tactic for too long that enemy got used to them.
Sassanids had the most powerful and the most strongest army in ancient world history.
Ammianus Marcellinus, a noted Roman historian who fought against the Sassanid army under Julian the Apostate, described the Sassanid cataphracts in the 4th century:
" all the companies were clad in iron, and all parts of their bodies were covered with thick plates, so fitted that the stiff-joints conformed with those of their limbs; and the forms of human faces were so skillfully fitted to their heads...
...that since their entire body was covered with metal, arrows that fell upon them could lodge only where they could see a little through tiny openings opposite the pupil of the eye, or where through the tip of their nose they were able to get a little breath. Of these some, who were armed with pikes, stood so motionless that you would think them held fast by clamps of bronze."
After all, we all know that most European knights and even the Islamic knights are actually straight up copies of the knights of Ancient Persia,Parthia and Scythia (Iranians)
nasty caesars you are wrong the parthians used not only light archers riders, they had fully armoured knights using them agianst romans just read the battle of carrhae between crassus and surena about 54 bc
All you Persians always bring out the battle of Carrahe, why don't you talk about the Battle of Dara, Marathon, Thermopoly, etc. or other defeats the Persians suffered. Don't forget the Battle of Gaugamela.
@ uioe oh yeah, i forgot them,
also the americans were based off another EXTREMELY successfulrepublic, the swiss.
the medieval swiss have alot in common with early america, the fairly isolationist thinking, the wish to rely purely on there being a armed populace, and the swiss republic is quire old dating i think to the 14th-15th centuries.
elgostine 3 months ago
i prefer the achemenids :)
persianaryan12 5 months ago
Ancient Warfare magazine sent me your way Mr. Radpour! Great article you wrote for them.
fourganger88 6 months ago
To me you are a real persian, the one who not sold out his soul to alien religion.
MultiMetaldemon 6 months ago 7
Yeah usually more armor as well. However there are technical issues.horse armor are still pretty expensive nowadays.Unless the guy wanna put tinfoil pieces around his horse its not gonna happen and its not going to look good.
Otherwise the clip captures the travelling warrior quiet well, usually people wear lighter stuff when they are scouting out terrain.
Btw is there a story behind this?
nomnomripper 7 months ago
@nomnomripper cataphracts didnt scout....
that was the job of lighter horse. the cataphract ad one very simple job, which we associate now with the kn9ight in shining armour.
form a line or a block, and simply crush or impale anything stupid enough to get close. thes4e gys were quite frankly tanks, wearing several layers of armour. but also occasionally had many of their ranks equiped with throwing darts and bows, they moved in VERY densely bpacked formations i dont think they even galloped
elgostine 3 months ago
the horse was armoured as well
kushalaimashkha 8 months ago
looking at your helm and armour i have to ask, as a cataphract... is that it?? werent cataphractts usually ALOT better armoured that seems to be the armour NON cataphract cavalry would have had?
even roman infantry had a shirt of maile. contrast with from roman clibinarii you seem pretty underarmoured
elgostine 8 months ago
@elgostine you try to make such an armor with a limited budget.
Shahin2102 7 months ago
@elgostine Well, actually, romans adopted the heavy cataphract armor after Crasus of Rome invaded the Parthian empire and was defeated by their heavily armored cataphracts.
gorgealaki 3 months ago
@gorgealaki yes the roman klibinarii were late roman developments adopted around the time of the 2nd/3rd century AD and whos use coninued in the earstern empiere for 1000 years under the byzantnes.
elgostine 3 months ago
@elgostine Numbers speak:
Average size of Roman army of 1stB.C. to 2nd A.D. = 500,000 to 750,000 and this probably not including internal regional guards. 300,000 of them were the legions (i.e. available for mobility). Guess that they had also ALL the Mediterranean under control (which aided a lot eh!)
Average size of Byzantine army for half the Empire = 50,000 to 120,000 men ALLTOGETHER. Them, they faced more enemies in 10 years than Romans in 100. They lasted 1000 years. That is efficiency!
notgodsemigod 8 months ago
@notgodsemigod Persians NO WAY were anywere close to the loserness (in tactical terms always, since politically Romans were the absolute masters, ensuring 100,000s of masses thrown into their expansionist wars, always by alliance of local oligarchies). Persians, while not matching the records of the ancient Greek armies (an Empire in 11 years) had taken much less than Romans to built their Empire defeating a long list of powerful enemies including some Greeks too. And they were back for more!
notgodsemigod 8 months ago
@notgodsemigod its also worth notig that alexander that while he had less land then the romans , it took hm 11 years to take it, it was also almost gone in about 100 years. the romans were much more effective inholding onto their lands, much better engineers and better seigecraft. they were also the few people to employ field artillery, each cohort had a number of aroww catapaults assigned to them like modern regiments with their heavy machine gunner and portable mortar crews
elgostine 8 months ago
@elgostine I myself have a saying: by the time Romans learned how to fight effectively they had actually already been mutated into Byzantines (i.e. it was just an army manned by Armenians and Greeks fighting the Greco-Persian way (i.e. combination of long-spear hoplites and cataphracts), with some Gothic additions... Prior to that, Romans were just a bunch of nearly 1 million half-trained badly armed losers who had lost ALL their first-contact battles winning campaigns only by massive numbers.
notgodsemigod 8 months ago
@notgodsemigod wait. i just rered this now..
badly armed? losers? these guys were capable of a great deal of combat flexibility, with multiple formations, on he battlefield and were one of THE MOST organised, this isnt huff and puff either, the fact that no matter whre in the empire soldiers camp was alway exactly the same
and.. might i add the romans were, to my mind the ONLY civilization in history to uniformly equip its army in metal armour
its just not been done.
elgostine 3 months ago
@elgostine By the way, now we mentioned it, it is true that for good or for bad (and certainly for the inaccurate), Persians were too often historically described as ineffective warriors or Asiatic cowards or a pompous ineffective army which of course is far far from reality.... actually the most acclaimed army of antiquity, the Romans was 10 times worse than the Persians (eg. Persians had won all theri first-contact battles, this including against Greeks) while Romans had lost ALL theirs.
notgodsemigod 8 months ago
@notgodsemigod well The Wars Of The Ancient Greeks By Victor Davis Hanson, looking at the changes and the factors behnd the changes in greek wwarfare methods, particularly, noting for the battle of marathon in particular, that the persian way of warfare, light infantry skirmishers, and little armour seemsed unable to resist the lumbering cloumns of hoplites in thick broze and linothorax, large solid aspis, helmets (which seem conspicuously absent from persian warriors of the same period. ) etc.
elgostine 8 months ago
DK , to kay adam mishi? LOL
Cyrus1sx 9 months ago
persian greek, whatever, all i know is that i dont wanna be on the recieving end.
which time period are you representing
elgostine 9 months ago
@elgostine Sassinan Persia is 623 AD-ish.
TheTapeandscissors 9 months ago
@elgostine The time period he represents is - I think (from the basic knowledge I have) - the early Sassanid period (i.e. early 3th century). If you see, the armour used is not of the type "full cover" (there existed already this but became more widely used in late 4th century), it is of mail-shirt, which is an adoption from Romans (Parthians used also mail but mostly used the traditional Persian scale male). The representation is very good.
notgodsemigod 8 months ago
u really like horse huh?
kaindrg 9 months ago
Persia would never again pose a threat to the Empire. But soon after Heraclius's triumphal return to Byzantium, bearing the fragments of the True Cross, Muslim armies swarmed out of Arabia seizing Damascus and a majority of Syria. Arab armies soon advanced upon Ctestiphon and dethroned the last Sasanian Shah (can't remember the name off the top of my head), who fled with his family to what is now Far Western China.
Germanicus00 10 months ago
Syria, even advancing as far as Jerusalem in the 7th century and burning the Church of the Holy Sepulcher (which was later rebuilt). Sasanian strength and resources were strained considerably during the reign of the Byzantine Emperor Heraclius. After 6 years campaigning in Southern Armenia and Mesopotamia and utterly depleting Persian military strength Heraclius successfully incited enough hatred amongst the subjects of the reigning Shah Chroroes to have him dethroned and murdered by his own son
Germanicus00 10 months ago
Good video. It's a bit difficult to find any material on Sasanian Persia. Not many scholars of the period, sadly. Although I've seen alot of comments regarding the Sassinids being Muslims which is not true. The Sassinid Empire was founded by Ardashir I in 224 A.D. (roughly 500 years before the birth of Muhammad) and was conquered by Arab armies in 651 A.D. Throughout its 400 year history, they were a considerable menace on Rome's Eastern frontier. Continually sacking Antioch and devastating
Germanicus00 10 months ago
also nice babe
kaindrg 10 months ago
how did buddhism fare isn sassanian persia
kaindrg 10 months ago
LONG LIVE PERSIA
RASASman 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
As a proud Persian, and Zoroastrian enthusiast, I must say to the less educated:
Persians were the basic ideology of the modern day Americans, but with a bit more nobility in their culture. Both have religious freedom, women had a choices (even serving in the army) and even a pure form of democracy (unlike in the us) and believe me, we were very excellent artists... so do please read your unbiased history texts, and you'll know what I'm talking about...
wolfboythe6th91 11 months ago
As a proud Persian, and Zoroastrian enthusiast, I must say to the less educated:
Persians were the basic ideology of the modern day Americans, but with a bit more nobility in their culture. Both have religious freedom, women had a choices (even serving in the army) and even a pure form of democracy (unlike in the us) and believe me, we were very excellent artists... so do please read your unbiased history texts, and you'll know what I'm talking about...
wolfboythe6th91 11 months ago
@wolfboythe6th91 what kind type of democracy exactly?:)
uioe 10 months ago
@uioe where everyone has the right to worship, right to live, and basically supporting the arts
wolfboythe6th91 10 months ago
@wolfboythe6th91 i asked because i'm curious if it was similar to rules of old slavians(before christianity)...so more details will be apprectiated :)
uioe 9 months ago
@uioe well, if you did something wrong like stealing, we shave your ass (hair from head to toe, is shaved off with daggers) and it's pretty much a better America. let people be people, and yet we give them protection and maintain a certain order that the Persians felt comfy about. I'm not sure about the taxes though, but we were far superior than Islam (we didn't force our beliefs on other people, nor kill innocents for not worshiping. For anything, we fought for the innocents)...
wolfboythe6th91 9 months ago
@wolfboythe6th91 the american system was never a pure democracy from the start it was intendedto be modelled off the republics of venice and holland, among others. its also very similar to the english parlimentary system which is used in my country bar a few minor differences. only with a areligous clause to prevent the massive religous persecutions happening in the other european kingdoms of the time.
the american problem is due quite simply to the powers that be having misplaced priorities
elgostine 9 months ago
@elgostine yeah but don't forget about
"the noble democracy","free election"(king was chosen by votes of all nobles),"freedom of religion" of Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth(in polish Rzeczypospolita-res publika)
more about that here-->watch?v=3OoSdnebLxw Norman Davies 1:20
uioe 9 months ago
Gentlemen, please refrain from making rude comments. I did not place this up here to start a cultural war.
About me, I am a Zoroastrian Persian. That is me in the video with all of the armor I made on my horse. The music is not Arabic. Also, I made this video simply to show what a Sassanian Cataphract looked like and to put up a proper representation of a Persian. Something different than what the media likes to portray us as.
Please, I ask everyone to be respectful towards others.
equusvideo 1 year ago 19
@equusvideo well spoken sir
godfatheraeg 11 months ago
@equusvideo well spoken sir, nice armor you have there too
godfatheraeg 11 months ago
@equusvideo Who is that hot chick? Is she persian? :)
And, love the video -
ViruzNoob14 10 months ago
@equusvideo if your talking about 300, id like to point out that while the persians are shown as utter monsters, they dont exactly paint anyone else as being particularly flattering either,
the athenians are described as being philosophers and boy lovers, implying their pansies of sorts, the ephors are inbred traitors, the 'assembly' are seen as indecisive, the other greek warriors as unprofessional brawlers. and not really soldiers.
only leonidis and his men are shown in a good light.
elgostine 9 months ago
@elgostine As for the 300, you are absolutely right. Do not think that in Greece the film convinced anyone beyond the still unknowledgeable 12-years boys (you see here in youtube screaming "Leonidas!"). In reality in Greece there was a huge uproar as to the historic inaccuracy and the belittling details which you precisely mentioned and yes, we did not find at all amusing the representation of Persians as gay: Greeks have respect for an old nation such as Persians.
notgodsemigod 8 months ago
@notgodsemigod persians as gay? asid from xerxes being androgynous in looks and his girlsd in his tent schmoosing up to eac other, theres no mention either wa of the persians attitudes.
elgostine 8 months ago
@elgostine Gay, not just in the sense of homosexual but in the street sense - as the term "gay" is used not just for homosexuals but also for people whose overall stance is not proud, not manly, not self-respecting etc. etc. I understand that a homosexual might disagree with that kind of use of the word but it has long been used in language but then what can the men and women of the island of Lesbos (i.e. the Lesbians!) say ? Hence, indeed Persians were presented as "gay".
notgodsemigod 8 months ago
@elgostine The film "Alexander" was even less well accepted having represented the hugest Greek in history who happens also to be the hugest man in human history, as a neurotic homosexual ... immense gayness. At least "300" did not claim to be history, "Alexander" claimed to present history which is worse.
There is absolutely no historic text that ever mentioned Alexander as homosexual. Texts mentioned that he had 7 official wifes plus concubines (and 1 official kid and other 2-3 bastard ones)
notgodsemigod 8 months ago
@notgodsemigod alexander WAS actually quite neurotic, one writer thinks that hitler in alot of ways makes the best analogue due to his high tech army, great charismati abilityrapid conquest, as well, as an obsession with personal greatness, and the fact he ended up killing many of his generals out of paranoia (no this isnt from the movie) and also that his conquests caused the deaths of tens or even hundreds of thousands and millions displaced.
elgostine 8 months ago
@equusvideo wait thats you? omg thats awesome, where do you live? I wish I had armor like that. I have a complete samurai suit, but its falling apart at this point. Anyway GREAT video, Ive made a couple vids about Persia, kewl to see a sassanid armor like this, which is rare.
wingwaabuddha 9 months ago
@equusvideo When Iran will become Zaroastrian again? Is it possible to your opinion? Cause I am quete a big fan of the Assyrians and Iranians, but not evil islamic Iranians...
gzee9zpvvv 8 months ago
@equusvideo Man, you rule! Your representation of a Persian cataphract is very good and very respectful to the long history of the Persian nation (call it Persian, Iranian, Parthian, Median, however! - ancient nations like us Greeks do have many names - us, we have Greeks, Hellenes, Ionians, Macedonians, Dorians, Aeolians etc. etc.).
It is hightime Persians do their come back! And this time Greeks will be their friends!
notgodsemigod 8 months ago
@equusvideo Sweeeet, is that yoou in the video?
AryanMede 8 months ago
@equusvideo Awesome video
Marraudor 5 months ago
The song is of Arabic origin ;)
gaggy69brayan 1 year ago
This is the birth of the mounted medievel european knight.
sleazypig 1 year ago
fascinating empire, has to be said.
theworldisfucked1 1 year ago
I hope the Savaran is in the next season of Deadliest Warrior. Time to get some heavy cavalry in there! It'd be cool to see Radpour again, too.
Tareltonlives 1 year ago
one question. thogh i can guess the reason, whyno form of barding? since this is fundementally what seperated the cataphact from other cavalry.
elgostine 1 year ago
Very Nice !
zsoltid75 1 year ago
Awesome =) YEH FUCking stupid ARABAS it´s saddens me that one great civilization fallen to those desert rats fuck them WHEN qestion to the persian there are a lot of zoroasther? or the majority of the people follows islam? Oh btw very pretty girl =)
Vegeta10000 1 year ago
Awesome =) YEH FUCking stupid ARABAS it´s saddens me that one great civilization fallen to those desert rats fuck them WHEN qestion to the persian there are a lot of zoroasther? or the majority of the people follows islam?
Vegeta10000 1 year ago
Awesome =)
Vegeta10000 1 year ago
the late roman n byzantium empire later adopted parthian n sassanids heavy cavalry tactics,they even copy parthian n sassanid heavy cavalry,if you check later roman armies,they look more like a parthian or sassanid army than a julius caesar type roman army,the late romans now fielded huge amount of heavy cavalry n horse archers,they also fielded more light infantryman than heavy infantryman that resembles the legion,sassanid cavalry were label by some historian as a model for european knights.
fmoa 1 year ago
@fmoa
Actually if you would study the roman army in detail, since it's existence they adopted the weapons of almost all their neighbours. First the etruscan type hoplite weapons, then in republican times adopted the oscan scutum, the iberian gladius, the montefortino helmet and lorica hamata (chainmail) from the celts/celtiberians. Then in imperial times they adopted the imperial gallic helmets, oval shield. Their success is largely due to their ability to use the innovation of other peoples.
darkdanu89 1 year ago
parthians n sassanids held off the romans n the only empire that the roman face that they never occupied,the romans av this dream of surpassing alexander the great in the east,they av this vision of the roman empire stretch all the way to india,but in the end,the farthest the romans go in the east is what is today iraq during the roman emperor trajan times,but he never fully stabilize western parthia either,rebellions are popping out in towns n cities trajan takes n he failed to captured hatra.
fmoa 1 year ago
Comment removed
Ylfordt 1 year ago
Is it movie or documentary? May I know the name please.
mdislam007 1 year ago
The first knights! Awesome!
Tareltonlives 1 year ago
So beautyful and so a pieceful music!! :D i thank you soo much you make my day with this Video thank you a lot!!
I have one question is this from a movie?
if yes wich one, if no tell me please from whrere you have it thanks!! :)
Gilgamesch1994 1 year ago
I thought the horse would have to be armored too?
KiljanArslan 1 year ago
beautiful armor, really looks fancy
Shahin2102 1 year ago
Persian Muslim Knights continued the tradition, just like the rest of the Islamic world that became Muslim, however keeping their own culture and customs. Islam is a dynamic faith that allows for it's host nation to retain it's glory. I am an Iranian Muslim who is descended from Persian Warrior Class, infact the last ones that stopped the Arab invasion. My ancestors converted to Islam by the Love of the Prophet's family, not by the sword. The Arab warriors never made it to where I am from.
SaracenWarrior 1 year ago
Sarmatians had heavy cavalry too
however a good heavy infantry, like a roman legion, can't be afraid of cataphrats, but of ligth archers cavalry.
In the middle age, english archers and swiss infantry closed the feudal cavalry age
fellinian 1 year ago
Western knights were a copy of cataphracts but with lighter armour (1 or 2 layers, very rarely 3). While they were very capable fighters they did not have the training and professionalism of Byzantine cataphracts, thus I think they would lose on most occasions.
Just note that by the time western armies arrived in the east, the proper Byzantine army did not exist as the Byzantine Emperors (Komnenians) preferred to maintain small mercenary armies (including the crusaders themselves of course!).
papagamias 1 year ago
@papagamias The germanic francish panzerreiters and the later medieval knights were also very trained warriors and I think they were at least so effective as the cataphracts of the Persians or the Eastromans....
Also very good were the heavy cavalry of the Goths
megasayajinsongoku99 1 year ago
Heavy cavalry units were known. But the original cataphracts were organised by Parthian and Sassanide Itanians. So successful that late Romans or early Byzantines if you want copied them.
Byzantines had lots of heavy units including the clibanarii but the cataphracts were their elite. Most of them were not Greeks but Armenians, no wonder! Armenians live next to Iranians.
They added a 3rd layer becoming impenetrable. Imagine them with 10 arrows on them & fighting! - there were accounts of this
papagamias 1 year ago
Parthians in Iran used Cataphract, theirs was very much like knights in shining armor and they used a Joust as well. The Pathians were Iranian but not Persian and their denisty predates the Sassanids.
47saeed 1 year ago
please change the title to ancient Iran, that is the correct name. Sassanids named their country as Eran
IranMarzban 2 years ago
How did you get score Leyla Milani for this?
geeker4history 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Persians couldn't use infantry because they were fighting all over borders (west roman , south arabs and egyptian, east middle asian troops ,north east mognol and others like hauns and north barbarian troops ) so they need a very fast army who could serve all over persia. BTW because Persian cities where farther from each other than romans and also dry big deserts in central parts they need horses to move and survive.
danielkachal 2 years ago
Comment removed
Ylfordt 2 years ago
Sorry to disappoint u, but Sassanids weren't Muslims.
SindbadBehzad 2 years ago 8
Comment removed
Ylfordt 2 years ago
Comment removed
Ylfordt 1 year ago
This was before Islam was in Iran.
JUGGALOCO17 1 year ago
Comment removed
Ylfordt 1 year ago
@Ylfordt my friend this is zoroastrian knight, not islamic knight
TabbyAngel2 1 year ago
mm-mm, who is that girl?
Zajuts149 2 years ago
Nothing wrong with pagans. Everything wrong with persecution of ethno-religious groups.
Cstrife234 2 years ago 13
Roman empire was pagan for a looong time, and it was just fine, conquering half the world
hjdutch 2 years ago
@Cstrife234 Zoroastrians were actually monotheistic, right?
TheTapeandscissors 9 months ago
@TheTapeandscissors
Yes, they believed in one god, called Ahura Mazda
fgdsjj 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
death to allah,may our beloved persia return back to zoroastrinism,the arabs destroyed evrythin in persia,go n read persecution of zoroastrains on wikipedia n u'll c the real face of these lizard infested arabs n what they did to our people killed more than 25 million zoroastrians,fuck u stupid arab the persians will eliminate ya frm this planet,we'll take revenge for our zoroastrain brothers n sisters tht u slaved n killed mercilessly,sassanids will rule persia again
thescorpionking2010 2 years ago 11
@thescorpionking2010
And wikipedia is the right source ?
Lol, get a life ?
If you see those hadith muslim read, 80% of those who got the hadith, was PERSIANS. Islamic golden age = PERSIANS..
EyBaba0077 1 year ago
@thescorpionking2010 well said brother, well said.
thecelticwarlord 1 year ago
@thescorpionking2010 another stupid comenting his ideas suck the arab.s cock
tibherius 1 year ago
@thescorpionking2010 you have no idea about the persian history.
corderitodedios69 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@corderitodedios69 :@thescorpionking2010 you have no idea about the persian history.
babijing4119 1 year ago
@thescorpionking2010 Are you from Iran ?
megasayajinsongoku99 1 year ago
@megasayajinsongoku99 persai is iran
pouyaraha 1 year ago
@pouyaraha Yes I know.... I asked basiclally if you are from Iran ?
megasayajinsongoku99 11 months ago
Sassanid Cataphracts used the most longest and powerful spear ever in world history known as kontos.
It was at least 4 meters long and even longer than 6 examples may have existed. Romans, Goths and Vandals used shorter Kontos (About 3.5 meters) but only highly trained cavalrymen such as those fielded by the Arsaco-Sassanian dynasties could have used such weapons.
SassanianPrince 2 years ago
And I am not saying this out of hatred towards iran as a country or its people. I am saying this out of annoyance and disguist to people like you who favour their pagan predecessors over the Muslims who bled to bring them Islam.
amadeus987 2 years ago
@amadeus987 well, many of those generals were really unexperienced, besides, the arabs used persian millitary technology and strategy.
The sassanids were also to busy, with rome,
and alos weakened, but yes the arabs had good infantry, but they were not equal to roman legions or sassanid elites, and they did hire troops, and they never conquered the deylamites, and also rostam were inexperienced in battle, the arabs did hire troops when fighting sassanids. arabs=animals got nothing to be proud of
PersianSexBomb 2 years ago
Persianshitbomb, youre a racist piece of scum. Even though Arabs used Sassanid equipment and strategies, it was their devotion towards spreading Allah's word on earth that made them bring down the pagan sassanids. They might not have had the equipment or training of the legionairres, but they fought with dedication and that is what made them superior warriors. No matter what you say or do you cannot hide this fact. History will always be a testament of Islam's glory and victory over the pagans.
amadeus987 2 years ago
So u deny that arabs are a barbaric people?
u arabs really do not have anything to be proud of
u arabs are one of the most barbaric people in human history, with no background at all, u Deny that? u are probably a stupid arab which thinks that u are the best, u cant even clean ur dirty shithole u retard.... and yes, I am a racist, if u say it so...and i am not denying that fact.. arab solders were pretty wild and ill-disciplined, and retarded.. roman legions were much better and sassanid elites
PersianSexBomb 2 years ago
You fire worshiping scum. I have endured your insults on arabs. But once you try to insult Allah your creator and sustainer you have crossed the line. I will not speak to scum like you and I assure you that unless you repent you shall spend eterniity in hellfire. May the curse of Allah be upon you
amadeus987 2 years ago
No, may the curse of Allah or whoever he is, be upon u barbarian arabs, who killed innocent people, u arabs really dissapointed him by killing his creations.,. and yeah, thats what that kinda spy saw.. they are more than just knights and monks... they are animals.. barbarians... who dissapointed their god... besides... they got small brains comparing to other people...but thats irreleent hehe
PersianSexBomb 2 years ago
i forgot to tell u something, arabs was brainwashed, belivend in some gay god named Allah something.. They really fought because of hunger, because they were barbarians, to kill innocent peopel and rape, to steal, and so on..they did not fight in the name of allah..they were nothing more than retared hordes of barbarians.. and thats a fact, u DENY that? dont use that excuse with spreading some gay gods words on earth.. u dont know a shit about god... jesus...be mature u idiot
PersianSexBomb 2 years ago 2
Byzantine spy talks about Muslims: "They are knights by day and monks by night. They pay for what they eat in territories under their occupation. They are first to salute when they arrive at a place and are valiant fighters who just wipe out the enemy". Another informant said "During the night it seems they do not belong to this world and have no other business than to pray"
amadeus987 2 years ago
The Buyid Persian dynasty sacked Abbasid Capital Bagdad and brought the Arabs to their knees.
Read before you leap.
SassanianPrince 2 years ago
God bless u m8 ;) long live king of kings, the great k8 cyrus of all kings!
PersianSexBomb 2 years ago 2
Sassanianprince, My comments were about Muslims defeating pagans. The buyids were muslims, so your comment is irrelevant. And by they way, the Buyids themselves were brought to their knees by the seljuk turks.
amadeus987 2 years ago
There is an immense amount of Iranian/Persian propaganda on these forums. For a scholarly analysis of heavy calvary I refer readers to
"The Development of Roman Mailed Calvary" by John W. Eadie. The clibinarius/cataphractoi were not a Persian invention but an Assyrian invention. The Romans had encountered heavy calvary before in their confrontations with the Ptolemaic successor states in the near east and had crushed them. The Roman defeat at Carrhae is mostly due to bad Roman generalship.
dmcfarli 2 years ago
There is little evidence to suggest that the medieval knight was derived from Persian influences. The contrasts between the knight and the cataphractoi are striking. The knight is a versatile, general purpose armored warrior equally at home mounted or on foot. He trades maximum armor protection for mobility both in the saddle and on foot. In contrast, the cataphract is a special purpose warrior who sacrifices mobility (he's useless when dismounted) for maximum armor protection.
dmcfarli 2 years ago
Another excellent reference that describes the capabilities and limitations of cataphractoi is:
"Sowing the Dragon's Teeth: Byzantine Warfare in the Tenth Century" by Eric McGeer
Cataphractoi were a weapons system with a specific purpose in mind but were ponderous, inflexible and expensive. They were revived and disbanded numerous times through antiquity depending on need.
dmcfarli 2 years ago
the reason of roman's defeat was Parthian's technique of war( attacking and escaping at the same time and firing from behind ...) which is famous as *partizan
and their strong armor which covered all their body and also didn't decrease their movement. all information that i said was written by roman who were enemy of iranian and unfortunately there is no history written by iranian ?( maybe most of libraries were destroyed by invader such as Mongols or history wasn't important for them?)
danielkachal 2 years ago
I don't know why this horse archer apes a Greek or Roman, shaving your beard and cutting your hairs?
Ainigmos 2 years ago
he is not "aping" anyone. There were many different styles back then. Some Persian nobles kept their hair long and shaved their beards. Some kept both the beard and the hair, and some, kept none
earthwormjim3D 2 years ago 4
i.e shortly a after the fall of Parthian Empire hellenistic manners (shaved beard and cutted hairs) put on eastern from Mesopotamia (growed and curled hairs), it didn't?
Ainigmos 2 years ago
Comment removed
Axcendar 2 years ago
Anyone heard ofthe deylamite infantry? the most professional infantry ever, sassanian heavy infantry, very well noted by the romans, about how well they stood up against roman legions. Also the kalif arabs, considered them to be 100% impossible to defeat, after many tries, to defeat the deylamites..besides, arab armies were very eager to hire those godlike soldiers fighting against sassanids hehe
PersianSexBomb 2 years ago
Well, I wouldnt exaggerate it, but they were quite tough. The mountainous region they fought in was also a factor that left them unconquered for 500 years. But Sughdians (from modern central asia) were also excellent warriors both on foot and mounted.
earthwormjim3D 2 years ago
"impossible to defeat"? The Muslims defeated every army persia had to offer. Khalid never lost a battle. The Sassanian persian army was powerful though. I am not denying this. But the strength of the persian army was the cavalry. Both the light horse archers and the knight-like Savaran.
amadeus987 2 years ago
@amadeus987 the arabs won bevause the sassanians had a inexperienced commander,,
besides, the arabs hired alot of sassanian heavy infantry and roman infantry some times to..
the arabs had a lot of hired sassanian troops
the sassanids had the finest infantry +archers+horse archers+ cavalry + quality bows+ perfect mix of troops in the whole world at that time, their heavy infantry were better than the roman infantry, and the arab infatrny was very crappy...nothing to rely on
PersianSexBomb 2 years ago
Oh really? youre saying the arabs won because the sassanids had an inexperienced commanders. The Muslims won many battles against many different generals. The muslim army defeated rustum's army even though he is regarded by historians as a brilliant general. The muslims defeated the daylamites time and time again, and no the early muslims did not hire the daylkamites. The abassids hired them but that was after Iran was already conquered for a hundred years.
amadeus987 2 years ago
@amadeus987 one more thing.. the arabs did lost all battles against the Deylamites... the kalif, after loosing so many battles, the kalif considered them to be impossible to defeat, but he had wars against byzantines later on, so those deylamites, joined the kalif troops as mercenaries, only because of money.. and they were alos the best infantry in the arab army fighting both against byzantines and sassanids.. they were an elite, much better than arab and roman troops
PersianSexBomb 2 years ago
Also the Arabian infantry was very effective. They defeated better equipped enemies time and time again. This is not just my opinion, it is the opinion of David Nicolle, a leading historian on middle eastern warfare. The muslims conquered iran, they defeated all the persian armies, and made their king flee like a whipped dog. Deal with it!!
amadeus987 2 years ago
The eastern roman empire and later the western empire, started adapting the Iranian military tactics of using heavy cataphracts as a major battle force after seeing their efficiency in the Arascid, Sassanid armies.
American media today is quite biased and madly in love with sandal epics which they associate with the birth of Western civilization. This comment is by no means marginalizing the Greco-Roman contribution to humanity, but rather its a retaliation to one-sided bias of American media.
Albulaban 2 years ago 2
But another major example, for your information Bjjownsu10, is the battle of Edessa where the Persian Sassanids annihilated the entire 70000 roman army with minimal casualties in the much smaller force. The Persians also captured one of the Gods to the romans, their emperor Valerian, in the same battle. Interestingly enough, even these defeats are reported by Roman-Greek historians whose opinion was undoubtedly biased.
Albulaban 2 years ago
Carrhae is just one example among many of the superior evolution of the Iranian military tactics compared to the Greco-Roman counterpart in late antiquity. In Carrahe, the Parthians were able to crush the 5 times larger Roman force with minimal casualties using cavalry men similar to the one in this video.
Albulaban 2 years ago
very nice video Sir,
Iranian Cataphracts (Achaemenid Persian,Sassanian,Parthian)
were the elite cavalry of the ancient world
PersianCataphract 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
cataphracts were the elite troops of bizantine empire, they used horses from anatolia.. and they were not persians..
joseb008 2 years ago
The Persians developed the massive heavy cavalries during the Parthian period. The Parthians are a clan of the Persians. Rome eventually hired Parthian and Sassanian defects into its ranks at huge pay rates to build up its heavy cavalry. Parthian and Persian Cataphracts were developed 2nd and extremely early part of the 3rd century BC. Byzantium was not even around. Furthermore, many may refer to the Saramatians. Saramatians were also an Iranian Tribe as well.
equusvideo 2 years ago 6
@equusvideo Persians developed heavy cavalry actually from the Successor states of Alexander's Empire.
Twycross 1 year ago
@equusvideo, Rome & Byzantine were the same & the Parthians taught a huge lesson to the Roman that came intent on taking iran, the wealthiest man of Rome & his army were sent home barley alive.
seanamico 1 year ago
@equusvideo Additionally, iranian Sarmatians played key role in formation of proto-Slavs. People who eventually countered hordes of Mongoloids and Semites pouring into middle East and Europe.
OkurkaBinLadin 1 year ago
@OkurkaBinLadin I don't believe it is sure that iranian Sarmatians were a keyrole to the proto-Slavs....
And the (Rus-)Slavs were ruled for a long time from the Mongoloids.. But later they fought back and they conquer a big part from Asia and they held it untill today...
megasayajinsongoku99 1 year ago
@equusvideo The Parthiens were an iranian people, but they werent exactly a clan of the persians. Still they considererd themselves heir to the achemenid empire
megabyzus89 1 year ago
read books before typing foolish comments, read ammianus marcelinus the roman historican and other roman sources about parthians and later the sassanids both iranian dynasties using armoured heavy cavalry against romans, byzantines began to copy taht cavalry from iranians after roman got defated by iranian heavy cavalry the pushtighbans and immortals many times.
Fravahar 2 years ago
Don't be ignorant. Learn history.
Ancient Persia, since the times of Darius the Great (550BC) were using cataphract horsemen in battle.
That's about one thousand years before the Byzantines ever existed.
Read about the Battle of Carrhae, were Persian cataphracts famously defeated the Romans in 53BC.
The Byzantines (Eastern Roman Empire) copied a lot of their military traditions from the Persians after fighting with them for so long.
omglollmao123 2 years ago 2
omg thx for your true comment, perhaps you like a book about ELITE sasanian cavalry, it is written by DR KAVEH FARROKH, just google his name,
even in the battle of gaugamela persians used heavy armoured cavalry in the right wing of their army by command of BESSOS, but they didnt use them as main weopn in large scale against the macedonian phalanx , they learned that bitter lesson, in the parthian and sassanid era they used cataphracts as their main weopen
Fravahar 2 years ago
@joseb008 catraphracts were used by the Scythians, Assyrians, Sarmatians, Parthian dynasties, Baktria, Achaemenid Empire, Sakas, Armenia, Seleucids, Pergamenes, the Sassanid Empire and later by Romans and Byzantines
Bors9 1 year ago
Comment removed
Ylfordt 1 year ago
@Ylfordt Armenia
Bors9 1 year ago
@joseb008 ''Byzantium'' is the Roman Empire!!!!!!
megasayajinsongoku99 1 year ago
Comment removed
Ylfordt 1 year ago
@Ylfordt and you learn how to understand , for the love of the gods .... I meaned that the term ''byzantine'' empire is wrong. The right term is eastroman empire, roman empire or Romania....
megasayajinsongoku99 1 year ago
Comment removed
Ylfordt 1 year ago
@Ylfordt Don't judge others only for their names or ''usernames'' lol . the username is for fun you troglodyte ... whats your problem ?
megasayajinsongoku99 1 year ago
Comment removed
Ylfordt 1 year ago
@Ylfordt maybe you could not understand exactly what I said because I am not a native english speaker.... you are a joke . Are you a fool don't to understand what I meaned ?
I meaned the ''Byzantine'' term is wrong. The right term is Romania or Eastroman Empire .....
ps. I am not in Totalwars forums.... maybe you should visit a psychologist... he can help you :-)
megasayajinsongoku99 1 year ago
Comment removed
Ylfordt 1 year ago
@Ylfordt thanks , I will have fun :-) . The terminology of ''Byzantium'' is from the modern world. The empire itself has the name Romania or Roman Empire ...
megasayajinsongoku99 1 year ago
Comment removed
Ylfordt 1 year ago
Comment removed
Ylfordt 1 year ago
@Ylfordt You fool , fuck off I have not time to speak with a 5 years old wannabe!!!
Leran history and learn how to behave yourself.
You can read to many books and in even in the internet that the term ''Byzantium'' was given from the modern historians. The people of ''Byzantine Empire'' called themselves Romans/Romioi ..
In this view the term ''Byzantium'' is wrong. You are very funny , but please read a book and leave the internet.
megasayajinsongoku99 1 year ago
@megasayajinsongoku99 Whatever
Ylfordt 1 year ago
Comment removed
megasayajinsongoku99 1 year ago
Comment removed
Ylfordt 1 year ago
Comment removed
Ylfordt 1 year ago
@joseb008 Where do you think they got that name from? From persian Kataphraktoi, as the hellenes named them,
Xerdocreisson 1 year ago
Immortals . What other infantry do you know that could use archery, spear , sword/axe at the same time . Persian infantries were divided by different ranks. The ones that faced the Spartans were of 3rd rank yet they wiped them and took Athen.
Persia0808 2 years ago
We had the greatest army from infantry to cavalry throughout all dynasties however the problem was we relied on the same tactic for too long that enemy got used to them.
Persia0808 2 years ago
While Persia had superb cavalry, they are well known for having rather worthless infantry besides... I believe... the Sughidians.
effigyoflight 2 years ago
Sassanids had the most powerful and the most strongest army in ancient world history.
Ammianus Marcellinus, a noted Roman historian who fought against the Sassanid army under Julian the Apostate, described the Sassanid cataphracts in the 4th century:
" all the companies were clad in iron, and all parts of their bodies were covered with thick plates, so fitted that the stiff-joints conformed with those of their limbs; and the forms of human faces were so skillfully fitted to their heads...
Axcendar 2 years ago
...that since their entire body was covered with metal, arrows that fell upon them could lodge only where they could see a little through tiny openings opposite the pupil of the eye, or where through the tip of their nose they were able to get a little breath. Of these some, who were armed with pikes, stood so motionless that you would think them held fast by clamps of bronze."
Axcendar 2 years ago
I dont think chain mail is the ultimate protection agains arrows. but I think clibanaries or cataphracts also used scale armour?
NastyGreaser 2 years ago
After all, we all know that most European knights and even the Islamic knights are actually straight up copies of the knights of Ancient Persia,Parthia and Scythia (Iranians)
1-The Sassanid Cataphracts.
2-The Parthian Horse Archers.
3-The Immortals.
Axcendar 2 years ago
the parthian horse archers?
they didnt use armour.
but I think the english knight and the french knight was actually a copy of the sarmatian noblehorsemen.
NastyGreaser 2 years ago
nasty caesars you are wrong the parthians used not only light archers riders, they had fully armoured knights using them agianst romans just read the battle of carrhae between crassus and surena about 54 bc
Fravahar 2 years ago
All you Persians always bring out the battle of Carrahe, why don't you talk about the Battle of Dara, Marathon, Thermopoly, etc. or other defeats the Persians suffered. Don't forget the Battle of Gaugamela.
Bjjownsu10 2 years ago
bjoo, keep cool lol, we iranians were over 1200 years in 3 dynasties super power, so what is your problem ??
Fravahar 2 years ago
I admire Persian culture, what I do not like is that you talk about all your glory but don't mention your defects and losses.
Bjjownsu10 2 years ago