HOW CAN IRANIANS BE MUSLIMS WHEN MUSLIMS DESTROYED THE BRILLIANT PERSIAN EMPIRE? ZOROASTIANISM TAUGHT JUST WORD, JUST ACTIONS AND JUST THOUGHTS. WHAT ELSE DO WE NEED TO BE GOOD HUMAN BEINGS AND BE CLOSE TO GOD? ISLAM IS BRUTAL, IT PREACHES JIHAD OR AGGRESSION TO EXPAND ISLAM, TELLS MUSLIMS TO FIGHT UNTIL THE WHOLE WORLD BECOMES MUSLIM, 9:29-33, GLORIFIES WAR, VIOLENCE 2:216, 4:95, 8:65, 9:5, 9:123. ISLAM HUMILIATES WOMEN, STONES, KILLS APOSTATES, PRACTICES POLYGAMY, TEACHES WIFE-BEATING, 4:34
why didn't he mention that rome actually took over a lot of parthian land? I really liked this guy's doc on the crusades, but now I'm wondering if that doc is too biased like this one. Sucks
Due to the delocalization of the Parthian empire, it never hurt the empire to a significant degree. The Parthian armies would simply come back and reconquer the lost land. Because of the constant conflicts between the two empires, the border would always be waving back and forth.
the 30% r1a and r1b and I is the scythian influence in Iran. and J is the autochton or native iranic. the asian N,Q, C is asian influence in Iran. Assyrians werent semites, the word assa means horse in sabir-sumer ancient hungarian word. the ogur-hun version of horse is ló-luvu in hungarian language.
no, persians were aryan-agglutinative middle eastern (subartu,sumer,elam) mixtures. mada or median is from mitanni which was hurrian, hurrians are from Subartu and they werent an aryan folk! Cyrus was aryan who killed the median king and were born persia! and only 1 scythian evidence for their stele the issyk silver dish from today Kazakstan, and these stele in hungarian with hungarian runes! the Parthian kings in our ruler line. the common people were persian.
these hungarians you can find in Sassanid iranian Empire too, the savaran elite cataphract. their Symbol was our Turul bird and emese princess, ukraine Museum "sassanid" silver plate. the szavárd magyars (savarian magog's sons) lived in today Azerbaijan. Our city Szombathely was named savaria in roman ages. In De Administrando Imperio (byzantian book), hungarian leaders called themselves as "Sabartoiasphali" it means brave subartuans.
I greatly admire the Persian civilization. As Pattonnn666 says, it is a shame that the Arabs destroyed these two great empires and slowly annihilated all love for innovation and progress. The middle east was the center of culture, civilization and trade in the ancient world. For a time Islamic cultures used to be at the forefront of astronomy, mathematics and trade. What happened?
I just love the way this guy talks really makes the video more interesting! Empires come and go they bow down to the divine winds of time. Achamenid Persia was probably the greatest of them all because it controlled more civilizations when there were almost no civilizations outside Middle East, N. Africa, and south eastern Europe. So it came the closest to conquering the whole world but I'm not saying if anything is good or bad.
@americanliberal09 what the world needs right now is a giant horde of Huns to rampage east from Los Angeles to New York, join with Vikings to cross the sea to Spain, then rampage across Europe, through Russia, then central Asia, and finally sack China, and return the world to a non-civilized state.
@kozmon0t ha ha ha ha not really. they are just like Rome wanted to expand.
the Persians are imperialists no different geez. if they were not conquered by the arabs they will still have it their way and force countries to pay huge tribute. and you meant to tell me they are better than the greeks ha please. i understand the greeks didn't know any better but the Persians were at the same level as any empire would have done. i can see why westerns don't pay attention to persia.
Including Alexander, who is the real reason the west ignores the Persians and venerates the Greeks. The Iranians still call him "Alexander the Accursed."
An imperialist is better than an imperialist pervert.
@kozmon0t so the greeks were prevents oh please just shut up.
imperialist is a imperialist regardless if they are prevs or not they are corrupt.
persians just want conquer just like rome they are not innocent. they don't care about the people they conuered they wanted them to pay tribute geez. and you said all civilizations are corrupt too but persia was better greece pathetic.
westerns don't care about persia anyway and i don't care about them either.
@kozmon0t your not offending nor hurting me. i'm laughing you because you want to be uncivilized person forced to pay tribute to an imperialist who doesn't care about you ha ha ha ha your just a joke
i bet you didn't know one of the persian kings slept with one of daughters and kill them, i bet you didn't konw they persecute other religions because of their twisted ideology. the persian empire was never normal bunch of crazed tyrants. i care about my freedom but you just want to be a slave.
@kozmon0t i bet you didn't know that homosexuality practice in persia. have you heard of bacchi bazi were boys dance right in front of kings acting like a girl. alexander never rape childern when he conquered geez.
the greeks have science, math, technology, arts and philosophy but what does persian empire have besides imperialism and copied other civilizations before them. when i watch some of these persian civilization videos are nothing but propagandas because their jealous and pissed
if the Romans had cooperated with the Persians instead of fighting, they would both be able to control and have power together. and so the Arabs would never come to power and ruined everything a few decades later. an uncivilized nation takes over as two civilized nation at war and take out one another. WHAT A SHAME
They did have a great culture, but it only developed drastically AFTER the defeated the persians, just like the Greeks had an incredible injection of phiosophical revelation after the library at Persepolis was burnt down to the ground. Co-incidence?
Either way, I was wondering, does anyone know what the name of this documentary is, I want to contact the narrator he is dynamite!
@farhadfatakia The ancient Greeks had a amazing culture also before of the alexander campaign and also the Arabs had a long cultural tradition but yes I also believe that the Persian culture had a great influence in both greek and arab cultures
@FaakedLillebror The Eastern Roman empire fell in 1453 with the capture of Byzantium. Prior to that Byzantine scholars fled to Italy with all the ancient classical texts they could carry with them. This influx of classical works fueled the so called Renaissance in Europe.
@refriaire they didnt even called them the eastern romans fool?! they called them byzantines or alike, they did not own rome nor did they have any kind of roman virtue...
@FaakedLillebror I wish I were as intelligent as you! You seem to know more about Rome than Peter Heather and Bryan Ward-Perkins. You know it ALL!! /s
Respond to this video... sadly both empires were rather thick headed even though the romans started the conflicts first with Marc Anthony and crassus attacking Parthia but instead of roman and Parthia learning from their mistakes they continued fighting till they weaked themselves to such a degree the Arabs could sweep in and take huge chucks of territories from both
@pattonnn666 actually they cooperated for a while when the Arab threat was at greatest, but it was already too late and they both lost. The romans or the persians alone could have defeated the arabs, but the problem was that they lost so much money fighting eachother...
Gaaarch, why are people always only proud of theyr warriors? Why arent you morons just once proud if culture, poetry, arts, sophisticated lifestyle and above all humanitarian leadership??
What the heck is that, that, when it comes to pride, artsy butchery is the only thing to mention??
It is notorous that Terry Jones is part of that long string of british "intellectuasl" infected by anti-italian virus, attitude dating back to the protestant reforms. Read the works of the anthropologist Ida Magli and you will discover how without romans west how we know it wouldn't exist.
@Caleidus May I point out that the Western civilization how we know it today created several monsters in different forms; including (but not limited to) Hitler, the British Empire (look at how India, for one, was treated), the Spanish-American Empire's behavior (see Haiti) and also Africa's colonization, decimation, and slavery. And yet, (excepting Hitler) all of these created great advances, for which our present world could not have been created. But would you like to be an enslaved African?
@sassnsoccer Slavery in Africa was firstly carried out by african to african then by muslim merchant and then by the westerner. I remember you that chinese used to boil alive in big pot their prisoners or to dismember alive human being (that is way they understood acopuncture). Not only the westrner were cruel but most of the world population. The western supremacy comes from the technology they developed. Had chinese or muslim achieved it before the west they'd done the same or worst .
@Caleidus Sorry for the late (late) reply, but I wasn't saying it's limited to Western society-it's prevalent all through the world. If it seemed like I was arguing, I wasn't-I was agreeing.
Which drugs are you on mate?? First of all we're talking about romans and not italians, second, this documentary is NOT about romans, but specifically about the other people crowding the world at this time. Nobody is questionig the great influence of the roman empire on the western civilisation, but there are certain historical facts show aspects of rome, which are in conflict to a history which was mainly written by the romans themselves and teyr sucessors the catholic church.
I have a question: as I know, Parthian language was a suffixed language, just as the rest of the Scythian languages, while Iranian language is not. (I might be wrong so correct me if I am). But in case I'm right, people should realize that they should rather link Parthians to Scythians, instead of Persia. They were neighboring lands anyways, so the today's political borders should not be relevant. (If I'm wrong in my first statement, please explain)
You are right that the Pahvala, they were a part of the nomadic Dahae Confederacy that included the likes of the Saca tribes and other various Scythian Tribes. The Pahvala were looked down upon by the Persian nobility in Susa, Ectabana, and Perspolis. Unlike the Sassanids who were seen as a much pure Persian Dynasty but of course both dynasties attempted to lay claim to Achaemenid roots.
@immortal117 Now that's it. I hate seeing today's nations build their history upon such things as political borders. I don't understand how one can even think that if some archeological findings are now being exposed within their country, that means they have the right to claim that ancient civilization as their ancestors. Scientists should look at traditions, languages, belief systems, etc. to connect one ancient civilization with a contemporary nation.
Great documentary. Terry Jones is as funny as always. Strangely, I keep expecting silly things to happen just like in Monty Python's faux documentaries...
To fravahar(the only idiot here)Scythians aren't iranian...do you know the difference between iranian and iranic?if not,read a book:i'm tired of repeating always the same things...and exactly how did i try to decline iranian history?
Parthians had Persian names , they fought the fuckin Greeks and they kicked them out of Persia.
they had an Iranic /Persian religion (Mithraism) .
and they spoke Persian language ,they established a great Iranic (iranian) empire and they kicked roman asses.
the ONLY reason there were at rivalry with the sassanids is taht they had a different religion, Sassanids were Zoroastrians , both Mithraism and zorastrian are Iranic /Iranian Aryan
Parthians saw themselves as the dscendants of the achaemanids.(Persians), they were Iranians /Aryans
Parthians , Medians , Persians were all the same ppl, Parthia means east in Persian Avestan (wich is the root to all Indo-european languages) Parsua (Persia) means south west, Media means middle , they were named that way cuz they simly lived in those areas, they were all of same race , and they all considered Iran weiga (Iran ) as their Aryan lands .
btw , they name of the Parthian Dynasty is Ashkanian, (not Parthian) Parthian just showed their location in Iran .
just like Persian , the Persian Dynasties had names like the Achaemenids, Sassanids. Parthia, Media, Persia, are just geografical locations among the Aryans/Iranian tribes.
To my knowledge Iranians and Iraqis are descendants of the Assyrian people, who were always in inimical relations with the Scythians, Partians and the whole Turanian empire. As a matter of fact they have even killed off/drove away the Sumers, and they've built Baghdad right over the Sumerian city of Uruk... That's where the nation's name is coming from too. I respect the Assyrian descent, they were strong and ruthless, but nonetheless enemies of the Scythians and Partians.
ROMANDEF and all other idiots, i have to teach you again, iraN MEANS THE land of aryans, and iranian tribes were PERSIANS, PARTHIANS, SKYTHIANS, SARMATIANS, MEDIANS, ALANS, ILLYRIANS, .. so persian world empire and sassanid dynasty are IRANIAN as well as the PARTHIAN dynasty, ALL EUROPEAN fashists who try to decline iranians history should shut up and accept that IRAN as historical and ethnical entity is a fact
and this should be a proof?don't be ridiculous...parthians invaded your land,and is normal that you have also their names in iran,together with the persian names...a part the fact that in the world of today,everyone can call his son as he wish...do you need examples?
also,they parthians weren't allies of the sassanids...at the time of the roman-persian wars,parthians were defeated and conquered by they persian vassals,the Sassanids...what you said it's not historically correct,and if it's enough for you(to consider them iranians),well it isn't enough for the historians
and they talked a scythian language like the other scythian tribes(after the creation of the parthian empire they adopted the middle persian)...you are confuse with the descendance of the sassanids...them,and only them,claimed to be descendants of the achaemenids...and this is clear if you consider the different organization of the sassanid empire and of the parthian one...
a question:why instead of giving me negative points in a so coward way,you don't try to respond to what i said about iranic and iranian tribes?maybe because you don't know what to say?shut up,man:the ignorant here are you...
in fact persians and medes are originary of iran,while scythians,sarmatians,and the other iranic peoples not...now that you know the truth,i suggest you something:before opening your mouth,open a book!
romandef you are so uneducated that hurts lol, you said parthians didnt spoke PAHLAVI ??!! oh my god !! lol hey guy the word pahlavi is parthian and the most aristocrat families of parthian aristocracy had the WORD PAHLAV at the end,
first of it's not a question of education...education is the way you behave,not your knowledge of history...so you are the ineducate here,since you offend me without a reason...second...parthians weren't original of parthia...parthians were a schytian tribe,originally called Parni,who ,invaded parthia,and then took the name of Parthians...but i didn't said they didn't speak pahlavi...i said they adopted it with the creation of the empire!
you iranians,my friend,make too confusion between the term "iranic" and "iranian"...persians and medes are iranian.Scythians(and parthians were a scythian tribe),sarmatians,Cimmerians,Alans and Saka are all iranic tribes...do you know what "iranic" means?as established by the same iranian historians,iranic peoples aren't absolutely iranian,but simply foreign peoples who accepted and appreciated iranian culture...in practice like the hellenistic kingdoms,which did the same with the greek culture
about the censorship...i'm a person who appreciate and study all civilizations,and i'm far from the typical western person,who knows nothing about eastern history...but,i have to say that,honestly,the same kind of ignorance is also in east...in practise the western historians have no interest in eastern history,but also the eastern historians tend to ignore completely western history...all the world is country,we say in italy...this is not positive,because history is becoming propaganda...
Well not the mojarity of there empire. The Byzantines Were Greek Romans. But okay it doesnt matter there ideas ar ethe ideas of westren Europe. But i Prefer the Byzantines because i am greek. Thats why i embrace all of greek history and romans. They were masters of the world you could say. The Byzantines rulers of half the world for a period time until the 4 cursade. I like the Byzantines because it shows the endurance of a nation when all its niebhors hated it. Rome lasted from 754 Bc To 1453
romandef,iranians (parthians and sassanid dynasty) and romans fighted 800 years against each other, so we can say they were equal and both were sphisticated civilizations, BUT the PROBLEM with you western people is you CENSURE the other SUPER POWER of ancient time THE IRANIAN empire,
first,parthians aren't persians or iranians...they're schythians...second...romans defeated sassanids,and defeated them in a period in which the romans empire was completely in crisis,together with his army and economy...so romans,in a bad period defeated sassanids who were in their golden age...so i don't think they were equal...i can logically think romans were at least a bit superior...
man...the last person who said to me "go and educate yourself" is still crying...a part the fact that the peoples you cited aren't tribes,but peoples divided in tribes(this demonstrates what you really know about this)...first...parthians didn't speak pahlavi...they adopted it with the creation of the empire(as well as the achaemenids did with the aramaic language)...
The Parthians fought for Iran. They claimed descent from the ancient Achaemenids. They spoke an Iranian language. They were Iranian in all meaning of the word.
you are wrong...parthians invaded and conquered iran...they were scythians...and the sassanids claimed to be descendants of the achaemenids...not the parthians...they talked an iranian language?read what i wrote before...you don't know the meaning of the term iranian,as well as you don't know the meaning of the term iranic...you don't know the difference between them...parthians weren't persians,and repeating this will not change the facts...try to find some proofs...
Yes, they were Scythians, but they had been living in Iran before the Achaemenid era, therefore they did not invade Iran. They claimed descent from Artaxerxes II, a Persian, and spoke the Pahlavi language (Middle Persian). They then swore allegiance to the Sassanid Persians and were in the frontlines of the Sassanid-Rome wars. That is enough for me to consider them Iranians. Iranian does not necessarily mean Persian.
first of all...excuse me if i attacked you,but i'm simply tired of repeating the same things...about the parthians...they were scythians(and this is enough to demonstrate that they aren't iranian),and their tribe was originally called Parni...after alexander's death,they attacked the persian region of Parthia...after this event ,they are always called Parthians by both roman and greek authors...they came from scythia,not from iran...
The Parthians were an offshoot of the Scythians, from the Parni tribe, but the Parni tribe had been living in Northwest Iran even BEFORE the Achaemenid Persians took control! If you go far enough, even the Persians were not indigenous to Iran.
Their language was Pahlawi, AKA Middle Persian, which evolved from Old Persian.
No, Arcases of Parthia claimed to be a descendant of Artaxerxes II. In the Cambridge History of Iran it says, "Arrian also mentions that the Parthians traced their clan back to Artaxerxes II." Not only did the Parthians claim Persian descent, but also the Samanids, Saffarids, Afsharids and Azari Safavids.
The Seven Clans of Parthia ALL declared loyalty to the Sassanids. All Sassanid generals, such as Peroz and Bahram Chobin, came from these Parthian clans.
Arsaces I and Tiridates were descendants of Artaxerses II,but according to arrianus...in reality this argument isn't reliable,and it must be considered like a mithologycal descendance(it's typicalof Arrianus),as well as alexander who came from Hercules...while sassanids since the age of ardashir,claimed to be descendants of achaemenids,ok?and it's normal thet parthians declared loyalty to sassanids:Sassanids conquered them...i've already talked you about the language,so i won't repeat...
Well, in my opinion if the Sassanids had a time machine which could take them to the heart of Europe, they could easily beat the hell out of Macedonians, Carthaginians , Spartans, Goths, Vandals, and other enemies of Rome in the West. Because they used huge elephants and superior heavy cataphracts in the battles.
Fortunately, the Greatest warriors or the ROMANS stood on their way in the East and saved Europe. However Sassanids destroyed all of their enemies in the East side at the end
Also according to me sassanids are stronger than macedonians and spartans(but spartans don't even deserve to appear in this list)...but i suggest you to not underrate carthaginians,goths and vandals...romans faced many times elephants and cataphracts with no particular problems...they had more problems with gothic cavalry and carthaginian generals...romans stopped sassanids,but at that time they hadn't the great legions that used to defeat carthaginians or macedonians.Consider this.
wait..parthians were a scythian tribe,and no one said that parthians didn't fought against scythians:the fact they fought against other scythians doesn't mean they weren't scythian...anyway i'm tired of saying always the same things...the fact that parthians had a similar language doesn't change them to persians...Scythians,Alans and Sarmatians were iranic,not iranian...do you know the difference between these terms?tell me...but first i suggest you to read an History book...
The parthians claimed Lineage from darius the great and spoke a Persian dialect. them being a scythian tribe is a myth.... Some idiots even claim them as isrealites.
parthians were iranian but they werent persian. and the arsacids (the rulers of the parthians) were not even parthian themselves. arsaces was from the parni tribe, part of the dahae confederation. arsaces is speculated to either be scythian or a bactrian prince.
@zazenzach What part of "The parthians claimed Lineage from darius the great" did you not understand? If they claim lineage from a Persian kind then what does that make them? Martians? Their language was basically the same as Middle-Persian Pahlavi.
youre a little confused bro. The Arsacids claimed lineage from Darius, not the parthians. Arsaces I is probably the grandson of Artaxerxes II Mnemnon (Arsaces is pahlava(pathian) for Artaxerxes).
The parthians were a distinct eastern iranian people. they were not persian. The Arsacid rulers of the parthians were of part (suspected) persian lineage, and part scythian/bactrian lineage. We know this for sure because Arsaces came from the Parni tribe of the Dahae.
@zazenzach The ruling dynasty came from Parthia ("roughly western Khurasan"[2] in Iran's north-east) and was established and named after Arsaces, therefore the nation is also called Arsacid Empire (Persian: اشکانیان Ashkanian). The Parthians claimed lineage from Darius the Great.
no, arsaces (the ruling dynasty) came from the region which is modern turkmenistan. he conquered the parthians, he was not parthian himself. arsaces could possible be part persian, but he was definately part scythian and possibly even bactrian. This is absolutely undisputed by historians.
And once again, parthians/pahlava were NOT persian. even the achaemenid records say this. Just like the Medes, Sarmatians and Scythians were not persian. They were Iranian but NOT persian.
search any credible source, or even wikipedia. Notice how it says Arsaces conquered Parthia???? He was from the Dahae.
Also, notice how its called the Parthian Empire, not the Second Persian Empire. Its because they were not persian. Thats why the Sassanians are called the second persian empire. It says Parthia was the 3rd iranian Dynasty, after the medes and the persians.
Arsaces the man claimed persian decent, not the parthians
@zazenzach The ruling family of Parthians ruling over the Persian empire claimed lineage from Darius the great, not all of them. And Pahlava = Pahlavi = Middle-Persian. The people from Pars province were considered the only Persians back then, but other Persian speaking people lived through out the Iran and the empire.
@persiandudeee the ancestory of the parhi is quite hard to find, but i'd say the regions of Sognia or Yuize... they migrated to the regions of the Dahae after the death of Alexander... thats whats knows about their origin...
the war of Heraclius was a defensive war...so is obvious that he didn't want to take persia,but only to regain his territories and obtain peace...so he never tried to conquer Iran...the result of the war?Heraclius vassalized the sassanids...this is submission...or not?
The Sassanids were sufficiently powerful and internally cohesive to push back Roman legions from the Euphrates and from much of Armenia and southeast Turkey. Much as modern readers tend to think of the "Huns" as the nemesis of the Roman Empire, for the entire period under discussion it was the Persians who held the attention and concern of Rome and Constantinople.
a part this technical argument...you're wrong about eraclius...first you say that that ypothetic persian emperor...which is Kosrau II...conquered a big part of the eastern roman empire...wrong...kosrau tried to conquer those territories,but he was defeated by the counterattack of Heraclius...if you conquer a land for a month,then you lose it...you conquered nothing...
We have to remeber the sasiands persians only went on the offence one time. Conquerded everything up to asia minor. But then Byzantine Roman Emperor Heraculis took iT ALL BACK BUT NOT AN INCH MORE. Reson is the legiondary is meant for deseret battle only medidtrean scrubs fighting
End Persian domination in Iran. Stop lying to the world. Persians are only 23 million out of 70, while the Azerbaijani Turks are 35 million. End Persian fasizm now.
HAY Dorzzo, I guess Greek mules are everywhere NOWADAYS!!!! You are making comments under a wrong video clip!!! This video is about the 2nd, and the 3rd Persian empires when Greece, and Macedonia had simply ceased to exist!!!! It was the time of REAL EMPIRES to coexist and compete, IRAN, AND ROME. Aha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha LOL
Dorrzo ass, is simply JEALOUS of IRAN'S unparalleled history! LOL The POOR greece & macedonia after countless VICTORIOUS invasions of PARTHIANS, were REDUCED into small poverty stricken loser vassal colony states only to fall pray to the VICIOUS Romans! There asses torn apart by Romans, they NEVER recovered as anything ever. greece & macedonians then became colonies of different countries & empires for the next 2000 years only to regain a petty-full independence in the mid 20th century!!!
Iran was the true Superior Rival of Rome during the Parthians (Ashkanian dynesty), and Sassanian dynesty before, during and after the fall of Rome, Iran was superior to them, and no knowledgeable historian can ever deny that. Fantastic video of TRUE IRAN.
It seems that Iran was much much peace full country back then but due to the romance disturbence Persians decide to turn agrasive and finish those who are borthering them. at the part when he said Persians and non persians, i heard this sentece alot. i think there is alot more in this 1 sentence. any good job SonOfCyrusTheGreat !
All the eastern civilizations were better than the western ones.....2000 - 3000 years ago.....they were the so called 'superpowers' of those times. But western civilization has been somewhat dominant only over the last 500 years or so.... I am not disparaging western civilization or there achievements, but it makes me sick when some ignorant fool argues with me about these facts!!
but yet the persian "elites" couldnt get past greece even though how many campaigns they launched.. the greek phalanx was simply too strong.. and it wasnt the persians who invented the "tactical flee" it was learned when darius invaded the scythians.. the persian infantry was mostly garbage, with garbage equipment. however they fielded the best horse archers in the world(the parthians w cataphractoi), in their era. they where supreme in the open. But not at all in close quaters.
HAY Dorrzo ass, you keep talking out of your ass here and there!! If you have HATE just say so and we deal with you. But NEVER try to FALSIFY the history of the world to the benefit of the dumb ass loser greeks who were kicked out, crushed, and finished for ever by the ASHKANIANS of IRAN. Not to mention the 13 invasions of MEHRDAD THE FIRST into macedonia, and greece who totally destroyed there best temples, and dumb gods again and again. greeks & macedonians simply were shiting in there pants!
HAY Dorzzo ass, didn't this video teach you anything? Do you have an IQ LOWER THAN A greek MULE? You must have been watching too many JEWISH owned hollywood movies, or too many eurocentric FALSE history to MENTALLY MASTURBATE like the rest of your dumb kind! LOL WAKE UP BOY, AND SMELL the defeat of your loser greeks! LOL
it doesnt matter who invented it ...the persian empire was the biggest and most powerful empire at that time.....btw Xerxes did invade Greece and did take over Athens...but yeah they were never able to consolidate and take over the greek city states.....the Persian infantry was pretty good just not as good as the Greek hoplites
I agree with you except the last part you said! The Persian infantry was actually superior to the greeks, & evidence of that was shown in all the face to face combat between the two armies which always ended in greek's total defeat. Greece's harsh mountainous terrains were impossible to negotiate for Persian infantry, light & heavy infantry. Not to mention Persians in that time didn't have clear knowledge of greece's terrain, waters & hidding places of greeks in straights, mountain passes!
no, that was just the hot gates. most of the rest of the battles where played out in open terrain, with an exception of platea? possibly? I think the greeks had higher grounds? the persians was not superior to the greeks in infantry if theres something history has showed us, its that. theres no way around it. the persian often had low quality shields and other equipments such as spara or gerron wich was easyly penetrated by the greek spears.
HAY Dorzzo, you keep not reading, and not watching this video!! It is all the answers to your distorted ethnocentric / eurocentric views of the WORLD!! Iran had taken over the far superior armies than greek infantry such as: Assyrian, Median, Babylonian, Lydian, Egyptian, scythians, Turks, Indian, and so many others in OPEN FIELD. The power of Persian army was in its lite and heavy CAVALRY which was invented by emperor CYRUS the great. Persian CAVALRY was ineffective in greek Terrain!
Persian CAVALRY was very ineffective in greek harsh, rocky, mountainous, or limited greek terrains, which greeks knew very well and chose to fight there! But Persians won many wars over greeks and macedonians which led to the total occupation of macedonia, and greece for 11 years. AND all these glorious victories over greeks, and macedonians took place during first Persian empire. The FAR BIGGER CRUSHING VICTORIES over poor Greeks & Macedonians took place during 2ND, & 3RD PERSIAN empires. LOL
IMMORTALS were a very special breed of men totally different than your JEWISH MADE Hollywood movie 300, which was a PURE U.S Jewish MENTAL MASTURBATION to benefit you distorted eurocentric view of the WORLD! IMMORTALS EASILY CRUSHED the best of 16000 greek phalanx, & mycenians who were hiding behind the mountains in thermopoly!! Therefore, IMMORTALS marched to ATHENS & occupied it for 11 years. Evidance of that, many Zoroastarian fire altar temples built by Persians in Athen & surrounding towns!
I wasnt thinking about the immortals in 300 :P lol actually those in the movie 300 was prob "better" than the real ones:P the real ones was fighting with bows... and 2 meter long spears.. good for open ground fighting with close quaters capability the greeks at thermopolaye had like.. 4000 troops including the 300 spartans but the persians had their 10,000 immortals PLUS the rest of their army and still couldnt get past the hot gates for like.. 3 days untill they found a way to flank.
HAY Dorzzo, you remind of the old, biased, & JEALOUS HERODOTUS, who use to perceive history UPSIDE DOWN to the advantage of his own RACE. A genuine Greek MULE with the IQ to match the animal! LOL IMMORTALS(Sepahe Javiadan) were hand selected the tallest & the STRONGEST IN THE WORLD, with 3 METER SPEARS, BEST SHIELDS (separ), Longest SWORDS(shamshir), Heaviest GORZ, Most advanced bows, & The FIRST users of HAND GRENADE in the world. You must have been Playing too many VIDEO GAMES brother! LOL
Actually youre right. The "immortals" as they where called was the warrior elite of persia and these men where superior to very much, just not the hoplites. the immortals could kill people at distant and still hold their own with their 2 meter long spears against cavalry. far, far from garbage as I stated.
this without saying that sassanids were weak...on the contrary they were strong(much more than greeks,and probably more than the best macedonians),but against the early imperial rome there isn't comparison(the best ancient army)...
what's my point?my point is that sassanids were just fortunate,because they faced the decadent late roman empire,while parthians got almost completely destroyed...before these centuries romans were much stronger and defeated,in all honesty,enemies much stronger than sassanids...do you require names?
i wouldn't know about them being "stronger", if you mean carthage then that isnt imperial rome. If you mean the seleucids then i do agree with you, but at their height rome was still a republic. other than these i cannot think of any civilized nation which put up a noteworthy fight against rome.
the black Huns invaded roman empire,not the sassanid one...persia was invaded by white Huns...i'm sure of it...check it out...about the rebellions,find me a sassanid rebellion more dangerous than those of eastern and gallic provinces in 3rd century...and consider that those rebellions went almost together...I've already said that there was no clear winner in those wars,but i think that romans demonstrated to be superior(consider that i'm talking about military might)...
in 395, the black huns began to raid the caucasus, and pushed south into armenia, and later returned to the steppes via the caucasus.
its good that you made yourself clear now. yes, the romans were (MILITARILY) superior to the sassanids, but that was my point ; despite this, the sassanids/parthians mannaged to hold them off.
i don't think black huns fought against sassanid empire...they invaded it,but there was no important war...a part this,what you don't(want to) understand is that romans many times were able to conquer completely persia,but they didn't for one reason or another(mainly economic,but not only)...so the main reason of persian indipendence is fortune...by the way macedonians resisted to romans much more time than seleucids...
it was a devastating decline involving all the sectors of roman economy,army,provinces,society...a downfall that began in 2nd century and ended in 476 for the west,in 1453 for the east...rom,an empire was destroyed by this crisis,and only by this crisis...sassanid empire was destroyed by romans and conquered by arabs...i think it's different...and let me tell you,that i think you read only a quarter of your history book...
whats your point? im talking about the wars between ROME, and PERSIA, and Neither side won. these wars weakened the two states to the point of colapse. do i have to remind you that the arabs also conquered VAST tracks of roman land? it was so easy for them due to these very wars. if you insist on believing in the complete superiority of the romans then go ahead. it is not my intention to change your mind. this is a matter of opinion. but saying there was a definite winner in those wars is false.
moreover,do you want to compare the crisis of the roman empire with that of the sassanids?My friend:sassanids had only occasional problems(and minor)...they never had a real crisis...on the contrary,the crisis of roman empire was extremely heavy...
by the way,sassanids were invaded by white huns(not black,and this is an hasty assertion!)...do you want to compare the enemies of persia with the enemies of rome?i think there's no comparison,with all the respect for white huns and sassanids...
entire eastern army?Statius priscus commanded no more than 3-4 legions and completely destroyed the parthian invasion in armenia!corbulo did the same,cassius longinus did the same...romans never used their entire eastern army to defeat parthians...read before talking:parthians,not sassanids...and if you want,you can post every victory of sassanids...but i know them...the sassanid victories were inferior to the
This has been flagged as spam show
HOW CAN IRANIANS BE MUSLIMS WHEN MUSLIMS DESTROYED THE BRILLIANT PERSIAN EMPIRE? ZOROASTIANISM TAUGHT JUST WORD, JUST ACTIONS AND JUST THOUGHTS. WHAT ELSE DO WE NEED TO BE GOOD HUMAN BEINGS AND BE CLOSE TO GOD? ISLAM IS BRUTAL, IT PREACHES JIHAD OR AGGRESSION TO EXPAND ISLAM, TELLS MUSLIMS TO FIGHT UNTIL THE WHOLE WORLD BECOMES MUSLIM, 9:29-33, GLORIFIES WAR, VIOLENCE 2:216, 4:95, 8:65, 9:5, 9:123. ISLAM HUMILIATES WOMEN, STONES, KILLS APOSTATES, PRACTICES POLYGAMY, TEACHES WIFE-BEATING, 4:34
DictaduraNo123 1 month ago
why didn't he mention that rome actually took over a lot of parthian land? I really liked this guy's doc on the crusades, but now I'm wondering if that doc is too biased like this one. Sucks
PatrickEngSU 2 months ago in playlist History
@PatrickEngSU
Due to the delocalization of the Parthian empire, it never hurt the empire to a significant degree. The Parthian armies would simply come back and reconquer the lost land. Because of the constant conflicts between the two empires, the border would always be waving back and forth.
niklnikm 2 months ago
@famemonster1993
the 30% r1a and r1b and I is the scythian influence in Iran. and J is the autochton or native iranic. the asian N,Q, C is asian influence in Iran. Assyrians werent semites, the word assa means horse in sabir-sumer ancient hungarian word. the ogur-hun version of horse is ló-luvu in hungarian language.
HungarianHistory 7 months ago
@famemonster1993
put down hungarian-sabir past, and slavs have hungarian blood (r1a1 scythian marker)
you iranians mostly semites of J1, J2 markers.
HungarianHistory 7 months ago
@famemonster1993
no, persians were aryan-agglutinative middle eastern (subartu,sumer,elam) mixtures. mada or median is from mitanni which was hurrian, hurrians are from Subartu and they werent an aryan folk! Cyrus was aryan who killed the median king and were born persia! and only 1 scythian evidence for their stele the issyk silver dish from today Kazakstan, and these stele in hungarian with hungarian runes! the Parthian kings in our ruler line. the common people were persian.
HungarianHistory 7 months ago
@HungarianHistory
these hungarians you can find in Sassanid iranian Empire too, the savaran elite cataphract. their Symbol was our Turul bird and emese princess, ukraine Museum "sassanid" silver plate. the szavárd magyars (savarian magog's sons) lived in today Azerbaijan. Our city Szombathely was named savaria in roman ages. In De Administrando Imperio (byzantian book), hungarian leaders called themselves as "Sabartoiasphali" it means brave subartuans.
HungarianHistory 7 months ago
parthians and Medians werent persians
HungarianHistory 8 months ago
The Sasanid empire was infested with conflicts and internal problem when they were defeated by the undeveloped muslim army.
samankurdy 9 months ago
I greatly admire the Persian civilization. As Pattonnn666 says, it is a shame that the Arabs destroyed these two great empires and slowly annihilated all love for innovation and progress. The middle east was the center of culture, civilization and trade in the ancient world. For a time Islamic cultures used to be at the forefront of astronomy, mathematics and trade. What happened?
refriaire 9 months ago
7 people are Roman.
uskokpravi 10 months ago
I just love the way this guy talks really makes the video more interesting! Empires come and go they bow down to the divine winds of time. Achamenid Persia was probably the greatest of them all because it controlled more civilizations when there were almost no civilizations outside Middle East, N. Africa, and south eastern Europe. So it came the closest to conquering the whole world but I'm not saying if anything is good or bad.
a09tma 1 year ago
Good for beating up the Romans but Persians are just as much of a corrupt, suffocating civilization. All civilizations are bad.
They're lucky the Huns passed them by to the north.
kozmon0t 1 year ago
@kozmon0t really dude?
americanliberal09 10 months ago
@americanliberal09 what the world needs right now is a giant horde of Huns to rampage east from Los Angeles to New York, join with Vikings to cross the sea to Spain, then rampage across Europe, through Russia, then central Asia, and finally sack China, and return the world to a non-civilized state.
Barbarians rule.
kozmon0t 10 months ago
@kozmon0t so why do you think that the persian civilization is corrupted? just asking
americanliberal09 10 months ago
@americanliberal09 all civilizations are corrupt
living in cities is unnatural, it leads to overpopulation and weird social systems such as religion being necessary to control people.
And other bad things.
kozmon0t 10 months ago
@kozmon0t hmm well o.k bro your choice
americanliberal09 10 months ago
@americanliberal09 One thing I can say for the Persians, they were a lot better than the Greeks
kozmon0t 10 months ago
@kozmon0t ha ha ha ha not really. they are just like Rome wanted to expand.
the Persians are imperialists no different geez. if they were not conquered by the arabs they will still have it their way and force countries to pay huge tribute. and you meant to tell me they are better than the greeks ha please. i understand the greeks didn't know any better but the Persians were at the same level as any empire would have done. i can see why westerns don't pay attention to persia.
americanliberal09 10 months ago
@americanliberal09 The Greeks were perverts.
Including Alexander, who is the real reason the west ignores the Persians and venerates the Greeks. The Iranians still call him "Alexander the Accursed."
An imperialist is better than an imperialist pervert.
kozmon0t 10 months ago
@kozmon0t so the greeks were prevents oh please just shut up.
imperialist is a imperialist regardless if they are prevs or not they are corrupt.
persians just want conquer just like rome they are not innocent. they don't care about the people they conuered they wanted them to pay tribute geez. and you said all civilizations are corrupt too but persia was better greece pathetic.
westerns don't care about persia anyway and i don't care about them either.
americanliberal09 10 months ago
@americanliberal09 You're offended because I'd rather pay tribute to normal people than to a bunch of child molesters?
kozmon0t 10 months ago
@kozmon0t your not offending nor hurting me. i'm laughing you because you want to be uncivilized person forced to pay tribute to an imperialist who doesn't care about you ha ha ha ha your just a joke
i bet you didn't know one of the persian kings slept with one of daughters and kill them, i bet you didn't konw they persecute other religions because of their twisted ideology. the persian empire was never normal bunch of crazed tyrants. i care about my freedom but you just want to be a slave.
americanliberal09 10 months ago
@kozmon0t i bet you didn't know that homosexuality practice in persia. have you heard of bacchi bazi were boys dance right in front of kings acting like a girl. alexander never rape childern when he conquered geez.
the greeks have science, math, technology, arts and philosophy but what does persian empire have besides imperialism and copied other civilizations before them. when i watch some of these persian civilization videos are nothing but propagandas because their jealous and pissed
americanliberal09 10 months ago
@kozmon0t ha ha ha ha your joke and these so called videos are fairytales really. it feels like i'm watching comedy central ha
americanliberal09 10 months ago
Thank you for putting this series on. I found it very interesting.
1236612 1 year ago 3
sassanid looks alot like assasin,even though i know it come from hassashin(hashishian), but there are no coinceidences.
SpiritBearTotem 1 year ago
if the Romans had cooperated with the Persians instead of fighting, they would both be able to control and have power together. and so the Arabs would never come to power and ruined everything a few decades later. an uncivilized nation takes over as two civilized nation at war and take out one another. WHAT A SHAME
pattonnn666 1 year ago 36
@pattonnn666 the Arabs were a admirable nation and they had a great culture!!!! You must be ignorant to think that the Arabs were uncivilized....
megasayajinsongoku99 1 year ago
@megasayajinsongoku99 yeah probably
pattonnn666 1 year ago
@megasayajinsongoku99
They did have a great culture, but it only developed drastically AFTER the defeated the persians, just like the Greeks had an incredible injection of phiosophical revelation after the library at Persepolis was burnt down to the ground. Co-incidence?
Either way, I was wondering, does anyone know what the name of this documentary is, I want to contact the narrator he is dynamite!
farhadfatakia 1 year ago
@farhadfatakia The ancient Greeks had a amazing culture also before of the alexander campaign and also the Arabs had a long cultural tradition but yes I also believe that the Persian culture had a great influence in both greek and arab cultures
the name of documentary ?
megasayajinsongoku99 1 year ago
@pattonnn666 The arabs come from a civilization (Islam) that surpassed both romans and Persians and WILL surpass the modern day romans once again.
conanf 1 year ago
@pattonnn666 naaaah... The Roman Empire fell before islam even was founded, BUT... thank the arabs for most of the classical texts we have today....
FaakedLillebror 10 months ago
@FaakedLillebror Byzantines were Roman too.
persiandudeee 10 months ago
@persiandudeee they were more greek than roman, they spoke greek... and most of all, they didnt own rome... thus not being roman
FaakedLillebror 10 months ago
@FaakedLillebror The Eastern Roman empire fell in 1453 with the capture of Byzantium. Prior to that Byzantine scholars fled to Italy with all the ancient classical texts they could carry with them. This influx of classical works fueled the so called Renaissance in Europe.
refriaire 9 months ago
@refriaire they didnt even called them the eastern romans fool?! they called them byzantines or alike, they did not own rome nor did they have any kind of roman virtue...
FaakedLillebror 9 months ago
@FaakedLillebror I wish I were as intelligent as you! You seem to know more about Rome than Peter Heather and Bryan Ward-Perkins. You know it ALL!! /s
refriaire 9 months ago
Comment removed
LordAzanko 7 months ago
Respond to this video... sadly both empires were rather thick headed even though the romans started the conflicts first with Marc Anthony and crassus attacking Parthia but instead of roman and Parthia learning from their mistakes they continued fighting till they weaked themselves to such a degree the Arabs could sweep in and take huge chucks of territories from both
LordAzanko 7 months ago
@pattonnn666 well said
LOLHICRONO 6 months ago
@pattonnn666 actually they cooperated for a while when the Arab threat was at greatest, but it was already too late and they both lost. The romans or the persians alone could have defeated the arabs, but the problem was that they lost so much money fighting eachother...
hirre 3 months ago
@pattonnn666 You can't fight the power of Allah, in the end anyone against Islam will fall.
kiafar 1 month ago
@kiafar And how do you know that?? So far Iraq and Afganistan have proved otherwise...
SonOfCyrusTheGreat 1 month ago
Gaaarch, why are people always only proud of theyr warriors? Why arent you morons just once proud if culture, poetry, arts, sophisticated lifestyle and above all humanitarian leadership??
What the heck is that, that, when it comes to pride, artsy butchery is the only thing to mention??
Bahutsauvage 1 year ago
It is notorous that Terry Jones is part of that long string of british "intellectuasl" infected by anti-italian virus, attitude dating back to the protestant reforms. Read the works of the anthropologist Ida Magli and you will discover how without romans west how we know it wouldn't exist.
Caleidus 1 year ago
@Caleidus May I point out that the Western civilization how we know it today created several monsters in different forms; including (but not limited to) Hitler, the British Empire (look at how India, for one, was treated), the Spanish-American Empire's behavior (see Haiti) and also Africa's colonization, decimation, and slavery. And yet, (excepting Hitler) all of these created great advances, for which our present world could not have been created. But would you like to be an enslaved African?
sassnsoccer 1 year ago
@sassnsoccer Slavery in Africa was firstly carried out by african to african then by muslim merchant and then by the westerner. I remember you that chinese used to boil alive in big pot their prisoners or to dismember alive human being (that is way they understood acopuncture). Not only the westrner were cruel but most of the world population. The western supremacy comes from the technology they developed. Had chinese or muslim achieved it before the west they'd done the same or worst .
Caleidus 1 year ago
@Caleidus Sorry for the late (late) reply, but I wasn't saying it's limited to Western society-it's prevalent all through the world. If it seemed like I was arguing, I wasn't-I was agreeing.
sassnsoccer 1 year ago
@Caleidus
Which drugs are you on mate?? First of all we're talking about romans and not italians, second, this documentary is NOT about romans, but specifically about the other people crowding the world at this time. Nobody is questionig the great influence of the roman empire on the western civilisation, but there are certain historical facts show aspects of rome, which are in conflict to a history which was mainly written by the romans themselves and teyr sucessors the catholic church.
Bahutsauvage 1 year ago
I love ancient history, and this is beyond eye opening towards the general perception of Persians, and their empire.
Thanks for the post! :)
DoubleEyeDominance 1 year ago
Great video ,Thank you
kiaaan420 1 year ago
The achaemenid empire - first empire of Persia. founder : Cyrus The Great.
The mercifull dynasty of persia
The parthians were very isolated to themselves and very defensive for their lands.
The sassanids on the other hands were brutal and conquested and crushed everyone in their ways.
outcome =
Achaemenid = Light
Parthia = Sunrise/sunset. something in the middle between light and darkness.
Sassanid = Darkness.
asvalof 1 year ago
I have a question: as I know, Parthian language was a suffixed language, just as the rest of the Scythian languages, while Iranian language is not. (I might be wrong so correct me if I am). But in case I'm right, people should realize that they should rather link Parthians to Scythians, instead of Persia. They were neighboring lands anyways, so the today's political borders should not be relevant. (If I'm wrong in my first statement, please explain)
Elachus 1 year ago
@Elachus
You are right that the Pahvala, they were a part of the nomadic Dahae Confederacy that included the likes of the Saca tribes and other various Scythian Tribes. The Pahvala were looked down upon by the Persian nobility in Susa, Ectabana, and Perspolis. Unlike the Sassanids who were seen as a much pure Persian Dynasty but of course both dynasties attempted to lay claim to Achaemenid roots.
immortal117 1 year ago
@immortal117 Now that's it. I hate seeing today's nations build their history upon such things as political borders. I don't understand how one can even think that if some archeological findings are now being exposed within their country, that means they have the right to claim that ancient civilization as their ancestors. Scientists should look at traditions, languages, belief systems, etc. to connect one ancient civilization with a contemporary nation.
Elachus 1 year ago
Great documentary. Terry Jones is as funny as always. Strangely, I keep expecting silly things to happen just like in Monty Python's faux documentaries...
Xochimique 1 year ago
@dystopialand it's disputable...iran was invaded many times,like italy...
romandef 1 year ago
To fravahar(the only idiot here)Scythians aren't iranian...do you know the difference between iranian and iranic?if not,read a book:i'm tired of repeating always the same things...and exactly how did i try to decline iranian history?
romandef 1 year ago
ur so full of it !!
Parthians had Persian names , they fought the fuckin Greeks and they kicked them out of Persia.
they had an Iranic /Persian religion (Mithraism) .
and they spoke Persian language ,they established a great Iranic (iranian) empire and they kicked roman asses.
the ONLY reason there were at rivalry with the sassanids is taht they had a different religion, Sassanids were Zoroastrians , both Mithraism and zorastrian are Iranic /Iranian Aryan
so shut that mouth for ever !!
ChristianRonaldo27 1 year ago
Parthians saw themselves as the dscendants of the achaemanids.(Persians), they were Iranians /Aryans
Parthians , Medians , Persians were all the same ppl, Parthia means east in Persian Avestan (wich is the root to all Indo-european languages) Parsua (Persia) means south west, Media means middle , they were named that way cuz they simly lived in those areas, they were all of same race , and they all considered Iran weiga (Iran ) as their Aryan lands .
ChristianRonaldo27 1 year ago
btw , they name of the Parthian Dynasty is Ashkanian, (not Parthian) Parthian just showed their location in Iran .
just like Persian , the Persian Dynasties had names like the Achaemenids, Sassanids. Parthia, Media, Persia, are just geografical locations among the Aryans/Iranian tribes.
ChristianRonaldo27 1 year ago
To my knowledge Iranians and Iraqis are descendants of the Assyrian people, who were always in inimical relations with the Scythians, Partians and the whole Turanian empire. As a matter of fact they have even killed off/drove away the Sumers, and they've built Baghdad right over the Sumerian city of Uruk... That's where the nation's name is coming from too. I respect the Assyrian descent, they were strong and ruthless, but nonetheless enemies of the Scythians and Partians.
Elachus 2 years ago
By the gods I love the Persians for how they delt with the Romans! Stuffed and put on display! How fitting! HAH!
Valmarith 2 years ago
ROMANDEF and all other idiots, i have to teach you again, iraN MEANS THE land of aryans, and iranian tribes were PERSIANS, PARTHIANS, SKYTHIANS, SARMATIANS, MEDIANS, ALANS, ILLYRIANS, .. so persian world empire and sassanid dynasty are IRANIAN as well as the PARTHIAN dynasty, ALL EUROPEAN fashists who try to decline iranians history should shut up and accept that IRAN as historical and ethnical entity is a fact
Fravahar 2 years ago
the idiots can claim everything...but their scythian descent is an acceptd historical fact...
romandef 2 years ago
@romandef They are not only Scythian though, they have a rich and diverse heritage.
Valmarith 2 years ago
All the time some in the West think that the Perisan empire came to an end when Alexander the Great defeated Darius 111 of Perisa.
But now we know that the Perisans built a much bigger empire thereafter , and managed to defeat the Romans who were much greater than the Macedonians.
sahajad 2 years ago
Comment removed
sahajad 2 years ago
Comment removed
SassanianPrince 2 years ago
Not ONE, Not TWO, But THREE Roman Kings had to bow down for PERSIANS.
The BEST Of The BEST.
1- ARIAN Race.
2- ZOROASTERIAN Relegion.
3- PERSIAN Empire.
The GREATEST Of ALL.
sinner234 2 years ago 2
@sinner234 roman KINGS?
saburoemon 1 year ago
Even today the Parthian names such as Mehrdad, Valash, Farhad or Pharhad and Khosrow are so common in Iran.
Scythians???? HAHAHA LOL
Axcendar 2 years ago
and this should be a proof?don't be ridiculous...parthians invaded your land,and is normal that you have also their names in iran,together with the persian names...a part the fact that in the world of today,everyone can call his son as he wish...do you need examples?
romandef 2 years ago
also,they parthians weren't allies of the sassanids...at the time of the roman-persian wars,parthians were defeated and conquered by they persian vassals,the Sassanids...what you said it's not historically correct,and if it's enough for you(to consider them iranians),well it isn't enough for the historians
romandef 2 years ago
and they talked a scythian language like the other scythian tribes(after the creation of the parthian empire they adopted the middle persian)...you are confuse with the descendance of the sassanids...them,and only them,claimed to be descendants of the achaemenids...and this is clear if you consider the different organization of the sassanid empire and of the parthian one...
romandef 2 years ago
a question:why instead of giving me negative points in a so coward way,you don't try to respond to what i said about iranic and iranian tribes?maybe because you don't know what to say?shut up,man:the ignorant here are you...
romandef 2 years ago
in fact persians and medes are originary of iran,while scythians,sarmatians,and the other iranic peoples not...now that you know the truth,i suggest you something:before opening your mouth,open a book!
romandef 2 years ago
romandef you are so uneducated that hurts lol, you said parthians didnt spoke PAHLAVI ??!! oh my god !! lol hey guy the word pahlavi is parthian and the most aristocrat families of parthian aristocracy had the WORD PAHLAV at the end,
oh my god you are so uneducated lol
Fravahar 2 years ago
first of it's not a question of education...education is the way you behave,not your knowledge of history...so you are the ineducate here,since you offend me without a reason...second...parthians weren't original of parthia...parthians were a schytian tribe,originally called Parni,who ,invaded parthia,and then took the name of Parthians...but i didn't said they didn't speak pahlavi...i said they adopted it with the creation of the empire!
romandef 2 years ago
you iranians,my friend,make too confusion between the term "iranic" and "iranian"...persians and medes are iranian.Scythians(and parthians were a scythian tribe),sarmatians,Cimmerians,Alans and Saka are all iranic tribes...do you know what "iranic" means?as established by the same iranian historians,iranic peoples aren't absolutely iranian,but simply foreign peoples who accepted and appreciated iranian culture...in practice like the hellenistic kingdoms,which did the same with the greek culture
romandef 2 years ago
by the way in ancient history there were many superpowers,and i consider the achaemenid empire much more important than the sassanid one...
romandef 2 years ago
about the censorship...i'm a person who appreciate and study all civilizations,and i'm far from the typical western person,who knows nothing about eastern history...but,i have to say that,honestly,the same kind of ignorance is also in east...in practise the western historians have no interest in eastern history,but also the eastern historians tend to ignore completely western history...all the world is country,we say in italy...this is not positive,because history is becoming propaganda...
romandef 2 years ago
uhmmm the most east civilazation i enjoyer listening to is the Byzantines. The east realy doesnt apply to us thats why we really dont care.
MurdingMonster 2 years ago
ehm...byzantine,being roman,were western...by the way i prefer the early romans...
romandef 2 years ago
Well not the mojarity of there empire. The Byzantines Were Greek Romans. But okay it doesnt matter there ideas ar ethe ideas of westren Europe. But i Prefer the Byzantines because i am greek. Thats why i embrace all of greek history and romans. They were masters of the world you could say. The Byzantines rulers of half the world for a period time until the 4 cursade. I like the Byzantines because it shows the endurance of a nation when all its niebhors hated it. Rome lasted from 754 Bc To 1453
MurdingMonster 2 years ago
it depends on what byzantines are you considering(i'm talking about the period)...but,yes:they are mixed.
romandef 2 years ago
shapur the first the sassanid king of iran defated 3 roman emperors that great defeat of rom
Fravahar 2 years ago
yes,and then he was defeated by Odenatus,a roman senator of palmyra...read about all the war,not only the first part...
romandef 2 years ago
romandef,iranians (parthians and sassanid dynasty) and romans fighted 800 years against each other, so we can say they were equal and both were sphisticated civilizations, BUT the PROBLEM with you western people is you CENSURE the other SUPER POWER of ancient time THE IRANIAN empire,
i guess this is clear
Fravahar 2 years ago
first,parthians aren't persians or iranians...they're schythians...second...romans defeated sassanids,and defeated them in a period in which the romans empire was completely in crisis,together with his army and economy...so romans,in a bad period defeated sassanids who were in their golden age...so i don't think they were equal...i can logically think romans were at least a bit superior...
romandef 2 years ago
romandef ,are you totally mad??
the language we speak today is from PAHLAVI and pahlavi is parthian lol
skythians sarmatians persians medians all are iranian tribes
go and educate your self
Fravahar 2 years ago
man...the last person who said to me "go and educate yourself" is still crying...a part the fact that the peoples you cited aren't tribes,but peoples divided in tribes(this demonstrates what you really know about this)...first...parthians didn't speak pahlavi...they adopted it with the creation of the empire(as well as the achaemenids did with the aramaic language)...
romandef 2 years ago
the fact is that they all consider themselves persian or iranian .. Much like the macedonians call themselves greek
armanipure1 2 years ago
The Parthians fought for Iran. They claimed descent from the ancient Achaemenids. They spoke an Iranian language. They were Iranian in all meaning of the word.
99999999988888888 2 years ago
you are wrong...parthians invaded and conquered iran...they were scythians...and the sassanids claimed to be descendants of the achaemenids...not the parthians...they talked an iranian language?read what i wrote before...you don't know the meaning of the term iranian,as well as you don't know the meaning of the term iranic...you don't know the difference between them...parthians weren't persians,and repeating this will not change the facts...try to find some proofs...
romandef 2 years ago
Yes, they were Scythians, but they had been living in Iran before the Achaemenid era, therefore they did not invade Iran. They claimed descent from Artaxerxes II, a Persian, and spoke the Pahlavi language (Middle Persian). They then swore allegiance to the Sassanid Persians and were in the frontlines of the Sassanid-Rome wars. That is enough for me to consider them Iranians. Iranian does not necessarily mean Persian.
99999999988888888 2 years ago
first of all...excuse me if i attacked you,but i'm simply tired of repeating the same things...about the parthians...they were scythians(and this is enough to demonstrate that they aren't iranian),and their tribe was originally called Parni...after alexander's death,they attacked the persian region of Parthia...after this event ,they are always called Parthians by both roman and greek authors...they came from scythia,not from iran...
romandef 2 years ago
It's ok.
The Parthians were an offshoot of the Scythians, from the Parni tribe, but the Parni tribe had been living in Northwest Iran even BEFORE the Achaemenid Persians took control! If you go far enough, even the Persians were not indigenous to Iran.
Their language was Pahlawi, AKA Middle Persian, which evolved from Old Persian.
99999999988888888 2 years ago
No, Arcases of Parthia claimed to be a descendant of Artaxerxes II. In the Cambridge History of Iran it says, "Arrian also mentions that the Parthians traced their clan back to Artaxerxes II." Not only did the Parthians claim Persian descent, but also the Samanids, Saffarids, Afsharids and Azari Safavids.
The Seven Clans of Parthia ALL declared loyalty to the Sassanids. All Sassanid generals, such as Peroz and Bahram Chobin, came from these Parthian clans.
99999999988888888 2 years ago
Arsaces I and Tiridates were descendants of Artaxerses II,but according to arrianus...in reality this argument isn't reliable,and it must be considered like a mithologycal descendance(it's typicalof Arrianus),as well as alexander who came from Hercules...while sassanids since the age of ardashir,claimed to be descendants of achaemenids,ok?and it's normal thet parthians declared loyalty to sassanids:Sassanids conquered them...i've already talked you about the language,so i won't repeat...
romandef 2 years ago
Well, in my opinion if the Sassanids had a time machine which could take them to the heart of Europe, they could easily beat the hell out of Macedonians, Carthaginians , Spartans, Goths, Vandals, and other enemies of Rome in the West. Because they used huge elephants and superior heavy cataphracts in the battles.
Fortunately, the Greatest warriors or the ROMANS stood on their way in the East and saved Europe. However Sassanids destroyed all of their enemies in the East side at the end
EdgeSimplyTheBest 2 years ago
Also according to me sassanids are stronger than macedonians and spartans(but spartans don't even deserve to appear in this list)...but i suggest you to not underrate carthaginians,goths and vandals...romans faced many times elephants and cataphracts with no particular problems...they had more problems with gothic cavalry and carthaginian generals...romans stopped sassanids,but at that time they hadn't the great legions that used to defeat carthaginians or macedonians.Consider this.
romandef 2 years ago
Comment removed
SassanianPrince 2 years ago
Dude what the hell???????
The Parthians always fought against the Scythians.
Parthians and the Scythians always had their hands full of fight against each other. How the hell could they be the Scythians?
Also the Pathian language which was known as Pahlavi was so much closer to the Persian Language.
Parthians were middle Persians.
The Sycthians, the Alans and the Sarmations were all Iranians. Read some books before opening your mouth.
Axcendar 2 years ago 3
wait..parthians were a scythian tribe,and no one said that parthians didn't fought against scythians:the fact they fought against other scythians doesn't mean they weren't scythian...anyway i'm tired of saying always the same things...the fact that parthians had a similar language doesn't change them to persians...Scythians,Alans and Sarmatians were iranic,not iranian...do you know the difference between these terms?tell me...but first i suggest you to read an History book...
romandef 2 years ago
The parthians claimed Lineage from darius the great and spoke a Persian dialect. them being a scythian tribe is a myth.... Some idiots even claim them as isrealites.
persiandudeee 2 years ago 15
@persiandudeee
parthians were iranian but they werent persian. and the arsacids (the rulers of the parthians) were not even parthian themselves. arsaces was from the parni tribe, part of the dahae confederation. arsaces is speculated to either be scythian or a bactrian prince.
either way hes not persian.
zazenzach 10 months ago
@zazenzach What part of "The parthians claimed Lineage from darius the great" did you not understand? If they claim lineage from a Persian kind then what does that make them? Martians? Their language was basically the same as Middle-Persian Pahlavi.
persiandudeee 10 months ago
@persiandudeee
youre a little confused bro. The Arsacids claimed lineage from Darius, not the parthians. Arsaces I is probably the grandson of Artaxerxes II Mnemnon (Arsaces is pahlava(pathian) for Artaxerxes).
The parthians were a distinct eastern iranian people. they were not persian. The Arsacid rulers of the parthians were of part (suspected) persian lineage, and part scythian/bactrian lineage. We know this for sure because Arsaces came from the Parni tribe of the Dahae.
zazenzach 10 months ago
@zazenzach The ruling dynasty came from Parthia ("roughly western Khurasan"[2] in Iran's north-east) and was established and named after Arsaces, therefore the nation is also called Arsacid Empire (Persian: اشکانیان Ashkanian). The Parthians claimed lineage from Darius the Great.
I can give you the link.
persiandudeee 10 months ago
@persiandudeee
no, arsaces (the ruling dynasty) came from the region which is modern turkmenistan. he conquered the parthians, he was not parthian himself. arsaces could possible be part persian, but he was definately part scythian and possibly even bactrian. This is absolutely undisputed by historians.
And once again, parthians/pahlava were NOT persian. even the achaemenid records say this. Just like the Medes, Sarmatians and Scythians were not persian. They were Iranian but NOT persian.
zazenzach 10 months ago
@zazenzach
(continued)
search any credible source, or even wikipedia. Notice how it says Arsaces conquered Parthia???? He was from the Dahae.
Also, notice how its called the Parthian Empire, not the Second Persian Empire. Its because they were not persian. Thats why the Sassanians are called the second persian empire. It says Parthia was the 3rd iranian Dynasty, after the medes and the persians.
Arsaces the man claimed persian decent, not the parthians
zazenzach 10 months ago
@zazenzach The ruling family of Parthians ruling over the Persian empire claimed lineage from Darius the great, not all of them. And Pahlava = Pahlavi = Middle-Persian. The people from Pars province were considered the only Persians back then, but other Persian speaking people lived through out the Iran and the empire.
persiandudeee 10 months ago
@persiandudeee the ancestory of the parhi is quite hard to find, but i'd say the regions of Sognia or Yuize... they migrated to the regions of the Dahae after the death of Alexander... thats whats knows about their origin...
FaakedLillebror 10 months ago
the war of Heraclius was a defensive war...so is obvious that he didn't want to take persia,but only to regain his territories and obtain peace...so he never tried to conquer Iran...the result of the war?Heraclius vassalized the sassanids...this is submission...or not?
romandef 2 years ago
Heather says:
The Sassanids were sufficiently powerful and internally cohesive to push back Roman legions from the Euphrates and from much of Armenia and southeast Turkey. Much as modern readers tend to think of the "Huns" as the nemesis of the Roman Empire, for the entire period under discussion it was the Persians who held the attention and concern of Rome and Constantinople.
5S5EVER 2 years ago
Comment removed
5S5EVER 2 years ago
your point being?
romandef 2 years ago
a part this technical argument...you're wrong about eraclius...first you say that that ypothetic persian emperor...which is Kosrau II...conquered a big part of the eastern roman empire...wrong...kosrau tried to conquer those territories,but he was defeated by the counterattack of Heraclius...if you conquer a land for a month,then you lose it...you conquered nothing...
romandef 2 years ago
We have to remeber the sasiands persians only went on the offence one time. Conquerded everything up to asia minor. But then Byzantine Roman Emperor Heraculis took iT ALL BACK BUT NOT AN INCH MORE. Reson is the legiondary is meant for deseret battle only medidtrean scrubs fighting
MurdingMonster 2 years ago
End Persian domination in Iran. Stop lying to the world. Persians are only 23 million out of 70, while the Azerbaijani Turks are 35 million. End Persian fasizm now.
Arslan170 2 years ago
HAY Dorzzo, I guess Greek mules are everywhere NOWADAYS!!!! You are making comments under a wrong video clip!!! This video is about the 2nd, and the 3rd Persian empires when Greece, and Macedonia had simply ceased to exist!!!! It was the time of REAL EMPIRES to coexist and compete, IRAN, AND ROME. Aha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha LOL
AryanSurenPahlav 2 years ago
HAY Dorzzo, the TRUTH is the TRUTH and no body can EVER deny it!!! DON'T YOU EVER FORGET THIS VIDEO! LOL
AryanSurenPahlav 2 years ago
Comment removed
AryanSurenPahlav 2 years ago
Comment removed
AryanSurenPahlav 2 years ago
Dorrzo ass, is simply JEALOUS of IRAN'S unparalleled history! LOL The POOR greece & macedonia after countless VICTORIOUS invasions of PARTHIANS, were REDUCED into small poverty stricken loser vassal colony states only to fall pray to the VICIOUS Romans! There asses torn apart by Romans, they NEVER recovered as anything ever. greece & macedonians then became colonies of different countries & empires for the next 2000 years only to regain a petty-full independence in the mid 20th century!!!
AryanSurenPahlav 2 years ago
Iran was the true Superior Rival of Rome during the Parthians (Ashkanian dynesty), and Sassanian dynesty before, during and after the fall of Rome, Iran was superior to them, and no knowledgeable historian can ever deny that. Fantastic video of TRUE IRAN.
AryanSurenPahlav 2 years ago
ohh sorry i didnt fix the spelling ! =P i forgot
TheAryanWarlord 2 years ago
It seems that Iran was much much peace full country back then but due to the romance disturbence Persians decide to turn agrasive and finish those who are borthering them. at the part when he said Persians and non persians, i heard this sentece alot. i think there is alot more in this 1 sentence. any good job SonOfCyrusTheGreat !
TheAryanWarlord 2 years ago
All the eastern civilizations were better than the western ones.....2000 - 3000 years ago.....they were the so called 'superpowers' of those times. But western civilization has been somewhat dominant only over the last 500 years or so.... I am not disparaging western civilization or there achievements, but it makes me sick when some ignorant fool argues with me about these facts!!
pradtheprophet 2 years ago
but yet the persian "elites" couldnt get past greece even though how many campaigns they launched.. the greek phalanx was simply too strong.. and it wasnt the persians who invented the "tactical flee" it was learned when darius invaded the scythians.. the persian infantry was mostly garbage, with garbage equipment. however they fielded the best horse archers in the world(the parthians w cataphractoi), in their era. they where supreme in the open. But not at all in close quaters.
Dorrzo 2 years ago
HAY Dorrzo ass, you keep talking out of your ass here and there!! If you have HATE just say so and we deal with you. But NEVER try to FALSIFY the history of the world to the benefit of the dumb ass loser greeks who were kicked out, crushed, and finished for ever by the ASHKANIANS of IRAN. Not to mention the 13 invasions of MEHRDAD THE FIRST into macedonia, and greece who totally destroyed there best temples, and dumb gods again and again. greeks & macedonians simply were shiting in there pants!
AryanSurenPahlav 2 years ago
HAY Dorzzo ass, didn't this video teach you anything? Do you have an IQ LOWER THAN A greek MULE? You must have been watching too many JEWISH owned hollywood movies, or too many eurocentric FALSE history to MENTALLY MASTURBATE like the rest of your dumb kind! LOL WAKE UP BOY, AND SMELL the defeat of your loser greeks! LOL
AryanSurenPahlav 2 years ago
DON'T YOU EVER FORGET THIS VIDEO! LOL Aha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha....LOL
AryanSurenPahlav 2 years ago
it doesnt matter who invented it ...the persian empire was the biggest and most powerful empire at that time.....btw Xerxes did invade Greece and did take over Athens...but yeah they were never able to consolidate and take over the greek city states.....the Persian infantry was pretty good just not as good as the Greek hoplites
pradtheprophet 2 years ago
I agree with you except the last part you said! The Persian infantry was actually superior to the greeks, & evidence of that was shown in all the face to face combat between the two armies which always ended in greek's total defeat. Greece's harsh mountainous terrains were impossible to negotiate for Persian infantry, light & heavy infantry. Not to mention Persians in that time didn't have clear knowledge of greece's terrain, waters & hidding places of greeks in straights, mountain passes!
AryanSurenPahlav 2 years ago
no, that was just the hot gates. most of the rest of the battles where played out in open terrain, with an exception of platea? possibly? I think the greeks had higher grounds? the persians was not superior to the greeks in infantry if theres something history has showed us, its that. theres no way around it. the persian often had low quality shields and other equipments such as spara or gerron wich was easyly penetrated by the greek spears.
Dorrzo 2 years ago
HAY Dorzzo, you keep not reading, and not watching this video!! It is all the answers to your distorted ethnocentric / eurocentric views of the WORLD!! Iran had taken over the far superior armies than greek infantry such as: Assyrian, Median, Babylonian, Lydian, Egyptian, scythians, Turks, Indian, and so many others in OPEN FIELD. The power of Persian army was in its lite and heavy CAVALRY which was invented by emperor CYRUS the great. Persian CAVALRY was ineffective in greek Terrain!
AryanSurenPahlav 2 years ago
Persian CAVALRY was very ineffective in greek harsh, rocky, mountainous, or limited greek terrains, which greeks knew very well and chose to fight there! But Persians won many wars over greeks and macedonians which led to the total occupation of macedonia, and greece for 11 years. AND all these glorious victories over greeks, and macedonians took place during first Persian empire. The FAR BIGGER CRUSHING VICTORIES over poor Greeks & Macedonians took place during 2ND, & 3RD PERSIAN empires. LOL
AryanSurenPahlav 2 years ago
IMMORTALS were a very special breed of men totally different than your JEWISH MADE Hollywood movie 300, which was a PURE U.S Jewish MENTAL MASTURBATION to benefit you distorted eurocentric view of the WORLD! IMMORTALS EASILY CRUSHED the best of 16000 greek phalanx, & mycenians who were hiding behind the mountains in thermopoly!! Therefore, IMMORTALS marched to ATHENS & occupied it for 11 years. Evidance of that, many Zoroastarian fire altar temples built by Persians in Athen & surrounding towns!
AryanSurenPahlav 2 years ago
I wasnt thinking about the immortals in 300 :P lol actually those in the movie 300 was prob "better" than the real ones:P the real ones was fighting with bows... and 2 meter long spears.. good for open ground fighting with close quaters capability the greeks at thermopolaye had like.. 4000 troops including the 300 spartans but the persians had their 10,000 immortals PLUS the rest of their army and still couldnt get past the hot gates for like.. 3 days untill they found a way to flank.
Dorrzo 2 years ago
HAY Dorzzo, you remind of the old, biased, & JEALOUS HERODOTUS, who use to perceive history UPSIDE DOWN to the advantage of his own RACE. A genuine Greek MULE with the IQ to match the animal! LOL IMMORTALS(Sepahe Javiadan) were hand selected the tallest & the STRONGEST IN THE WORLD, with 3 METER SPEARS, BEST SHIELDS (separ), Longest SWORDS(shamshir), Heaviest GORZ, Most advanced bows, & The FIRST users of HAND GRENADE in the world. You must have been Playing too many VIDEO GAMES brother! LOL
AryanSurenPahlav 2 years ago
HAY Dorzzo ASS, don't you EVER forget this video!! LOL Aha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha
AryanSurenPahlav 2 years ago
Actually youre right. The "immortals" as they where called was the warrior elite of persia and these men where superior to very much, just not the hoplites. the immortals could kill people at distant and still hold their own with their 2 meter long spears against cavalry. far, far from garbage as I stated.
Dorrzo 2 years ago
It's a shame that the romans didn't have their legionry system anymore when the sassanids came.
what i really wanna know about is like parthia's earliest roots and it's wars on the selucids
EsseTBitch 2 years ago
i think this is the single best video on youtube makes me more proud of our warriors everytime i watch it
kiafar 2 years ago 8
Persia will always be a strong country not matter what. Hope they bring that Ayatollah down or wtf his name is.
ViruzNoob14 3 years ago 5
damn right!!
pradtheprophet 2 years ago
when i said before these centuries i meaned republican times,so also carthage and seleucids...
romandef 3 years ago
this without saying that sassanids were weak...on the contrary they were strong(much more than greeks,and probably more than the best macedonians),but against the early imperial rome there isn't comparison(the best ancient army)...
romandef 3 years ago
what's my point?my point is that sassanids were just fortunate,because they faced the decadent late roman empire,while parthians got almost completely destroyed...before these centuries romans were much stronger and defeated,in all honesty,enemies much stronger than sassanids...do you require names?
romandef 3 years ago
i wouldn't know about them being "stronger", if you mean carthage then that isnt imperial rome. If you mean the seleucids then i do agree with you, but at their height rome was still a republic. other than these i cannot think of any civilized nation which put up a noteworthy fight against rome.
kaikayne 3 years ago
the black Huns invaded roman empire,not the sassanid one...persia was invaded by white Huns...i'm sure of it...check it out...about the rebellions,find me a sassanid rebellion more dangerous than those of eastern and gallic provinces in 3rd century...and consider that those rebellions went almost together...I've already said that there was no clear winner in those wars,but i think that romans demonstrated to be superior(consider that i'm talking about military might)...
romandef 3 years ago
in 395, the black huns began to raid the caucasus, and pushed south into armenia, and later returned to the steppes via the caucasus.
its good that you made yourself clear now. yes, the romans were (MILITARILY) superior to the sassanids, but that was my point ; despite this, the sassanids/parthians mannaged to hold them off.
kaikayne 3 years ago
i don't think black huns fought against sassanid empire...they invaded it,but there was no important war...a part this,what you don't(want to) understand is that romans many times were able to conquer completely persia,but they didn't for one reason or another(mainly economic,but not only)...so the main reason of persian indipendence is fortune...by the way macedonians resisted to romans much more time than seleucids...
romandef 3 years ago
it was a devastating decline involving all the sectors of roman economy,army,provinces,society...a downfall that began in 2nd century and ended in 476 for the west,in 1453 for the east...rom,an empire was destroyed by this crisis,and only by this crisis...sassanid empire was destroyed by romans and conquered by arabs...i think it's different...and let me tell you,that i think you read only a quarter of your history book...
romandef 3 years ago
whats your point? im talking about the wars between ROME, and PERSIA, and Neither side won. these wars weakened the two states to the point of colapse. do i have to remind you that the arabs also conquered VAST tracks of roman land? it was so easy for them due to these very wars. if you insist on believing in the complete superiority of the romans then go ahead. it is not my intention to change your mind. this is a matter of opinion. but saying there was a definite winner in those wars is false.
kaikayne 3 years ago
moreover,do you want to compare the crisis of the roman empire with that of the sassanids?My friend:sassanids had only occasional problems(and minor)...they never had a real crisis...on the contrary,the crisis of roman empire was extremely heavy...
romandef 3 years ago
false, sassanids/parthians had MAJOR rebbellions, very often due to their feudal governance system. more than rome.
kaikayne 3 years ago
by the way,sassanids were invaded by white huns(not black,and this is an hasty assertion!)...do you want to compare the enemies of persia with the enemies of rome?i think there's no comparison,with all the respect for white huns and sassanids...
romandef 3 years ago
no i mean the BLACK huns, look it up.
kaikayne 3 years ago
entire eastern army?Statius priscus commanded no more than 3-4 legions and completely destroyed the parthian invasion in armenia!corbulo did the same,cassius longinus did the same...romans never used their entire eastern army to defeat parthians...read before talking:parthians,not sassanids...and if you want,you can post every victory of sassanids...but i know them...the sassanid victories were inferior to the