Persian-Roman Encounters under the Parthians and Sassanids

[tubermier]

God prevented the Sassinids from becoming imperialistic and that is why they did not take Constantinople. He had other plans for the Parthians. They were all named from names derived from the name ISAAC. IN ISAAC SHALL THY SEED BE CALLED. This is what GOD told ABRAHAM. (NOT IN JUDAH SHALL THY SEED BE CALLED) JEWS are not the whole seedline of ABRAHAM. JUST one tribe falsely claiming ISRAEL as thier own. The Parthians were disbanded and moved to EUROPE to become the EUROPEANS. ISRAEL is EUROPE.

[tubermier]

The PARTHIANS were ISRAELITES who had been deported by the ASSYRIANS to ASSYRIA.After fall of Assyria and Babylon all Israelites reformed BY GOD into 12 federated states under the rule of the MAGISTINE,(MAGI) who visited Jerusalem to see the Messiah because they knew the Prophecies of ISRAEL intimately. Rome wanted to expand.Parthia said no and defeated Rome several times.Hence we have the mighty Romans whipped back to the Euphrates by a superior army which had no imperialistic desires.

[MrBsct]

Biased video....Did you mention the Romans conquered Iraq and sacked the capital and held it for years? Did you mention the Sassinids failed to take Constantinople?

[Lenangreal]

the persian civilization was great. shame it was conquered by those retarded islamic bedouins

[NWA90s]

@Lenangreal it wouldt be conquered if it was great

[thone2008]

Persian-Greek-Rome-Egypt are the same Empire, the Power Shifts between the Family Trees

[diagreen]

i realize there are many holes in history.can u please supply dates???

[persiandudeee]

The Romans were a powerfull empire too, but the Persians humiliated them time and time again. Can't argue with facts.

[Fravahar]

it makes me happy to see some EURO-CENTRIC fanatics are going mad lol when we iranians celebrate our glorious heritage lol

[aryashahin2008]

excellent video tanx

[milossmederevo]

After the battle of carre parthians invaded roman syria, but they were defeated by cassius. After the defeat of Cassius and Brutus, parthians have invaded roman syria, judea and asia minor. They were defeated in anadolia by roman general Publius Ventidius Bassus in 40 BC. In 38 BC they again tried to conquer syria but were defeated by romans at Battle of Mount Gindarus. Julius caesar has planed to conquer parthia with 100 000 men. Sorry for my bad english.

[solo141984]

a lot of people hate on my Iranian heritage and my warrior ancestor..the truth is even now in this fucked up world you won´t find heroes and noble people like my iranian people..

iran hargez naxahad mord

[Taharah007]

@solo141984 VIVA LOS PERSIANS!!!! THE GREATEST CULTURE ON EARTH!

[BEYADEHVATAN]

@Taharah007 dorood bar hamvatan garami.. baradaran aryanejad.. zende baad Iran va Iranian

Cho Iran mabashad Tane man mabad

[PewPewPlasmagun]

@Taharah007 syrian are greaters xP

[Rammbock]

Tha Parthians are famous for the battle of Carrhae, but were otherwise a rather disorganised and foolish people. Unlike the Romans, who after every victory consequently moved ahead and secured the conquered cities, the Parthians just fought defensive battles and engaged in clan rivalry ALL THE TIME. That was one of the reasons why they never really rooted out the Romans to the East of Constantinopolus (while that is what they should have done).

[mreza1979]

@Rammbock , is that why romans lost almost all the wars to iranians( parthians and sasanis)?!!!!! maybe parthians were wise not to invade other people's lands unlike roman!!!!!! think before u open your mouth.

[Rammbock]

@mreza1979 mr smartass: the romans invaded ctesiphon. i cannot remember the time when the parthians or persians invaded the city rome. get the idea? dar zemn dar e kuneta bigir!

[mreza1979]

@Rammbock , man dare kose nanato migiram ,dar zemn I don't remember any of the persian kings being killed by romans I don't remember any of the persian army generals being used as slaves in rome to work on farms.I don't remember any of persian kings bowing down in front of the horse of romans just to spare them their lives. did u get the idea? nanat be roman ha kos dade? ya khodet dari koon midi?

[DAVORINAAA]

@mreza1979 I don't remember any Roman ruler running across whole empire purchased by one army while his wife and children were prisoners. Romans sacked Sassanian capital more than once and Roman empire survived Arab invasion while Persian were crushed by it, they didn't even give a good fight.

[gorgealaki]

@DAVORINAAA Shapur alone defeated Phillip and Gordian and took Valerian captive. the Romans NEVER sacked the Sassanid capital of Ctesiphon. Khosrow to was just about to conquer constantinople. The reason the Persians lost the war against arabs was that the empire was already on the verge of collapse and it was no longer supported by the people. The Sassanids had lost in their latest wars with Romans and Turks too. The Persians were too proud to turn away from the enemies unlike the romans.

[gorgealaki]

@DAVORINAAA And you think they did not even fight well because the only sources of history passed down to us were written by arabs. In some cases reason tells you that the number of Persian soldiers must have been much smaller than those of arabs contrary to the reports. What they call the battle of Nihavand was actually a riot and there is no way 150000 Persians could have attended it. Rostam in al-qadisiah did everything he could to prevent the war, but why if they outnumbered arabs?

[shitonMOHAMMAD]

@gorgealaki

you are right. I read the history of Tabari again and again and came out wtih many inconsistencies.

though he mentions 150,000 Persians, Tabari later mentions the Persian army numbered 50,000 FIGHERS.

Same with the battle of Qadisyyah where he mentions 120,000 men but later he mentions that each elephant had 20 men riding them when in fact each elphant had only two so arabs exagerate by a factor of 10! (unless we are talking about Oliphants from Lord of the Rungs!)

[BEYADEHVATAN]

@DAVORINAAA did these socalled history facts come right out your ass..?? i think you and all the western socalled history had your share of lies in the making of history.. so get your ass another check.. second opinion In history of mankind we have had The true noble kings and Iranians and on the other hand filthy backstabbing lying culture of the West

[DAVORINAAA]

@BEYADEHVATAN You forgot jews

[IranZamin7000]

@Rammbock

what you say is not correct.. The Parthian were consummate horsemen , known for a military tactic called the Parthian shot.They are noted in western history for defeating the Greek Seleucid Empire and ending the Hellenization of Iran.That powerful Empire became a rival state of the powerful Roman Empire.both empires were powerful.

[FaakedLillebror]

@IranZamin7000 they did not entirely end the Hellenization of Asia Minor, they embraced it and added it to their own costumes... thats why we have many of the Hellenic historical accounts, plays, texts, poetry today... accually they were read by Sanassid and Arabic students later on... :)

[BEYADEHVATAN]

@IranZamin7000 hamvatan e Garami.. dorood bar shoma.. it has no use convincing those in a corrupt system of education or telling them otherwise..these publishers and universities first of all apprehend Western filosofy and also when the same universities are being payed to change the name of the Persian Golf for mere money and oil profits.. Would you say that Arabs are to blaim or the Western world to for this shamefull course in life??

[wingclaws]

the 9th legion crossed hadrians wall and never returned. so the parthians are not the only civiliation to wipe out a roman legion

[megasayajinsongoku99]

And the Germanics destroyed roman legions in their prime too .....

Only three nations could say that they stand against the Romans..... the Scotts , the Germanics and the mighty Parthians(Persians) .....

[ADZ01982]

@megasayajinsongoku99 Not really the Scots they lost all there battles with Romans but kept up raids against them and at that point Rome decided to end its expansion and fortified it borders. The Scots got a little lucky really. Carthage had the greatest victorys of all over the Romans almost destroying the Roman Empire however the Romans suceeded in a war of attrition after hundreds of years.

[megasayajinsongoku99]

@ADZ01982 Yes you are right , but in the end the Romans never could hold Scotland.... Many nations were dangerous to the Romans, not only theCarthagians... For example the Germanics( Teutons, Cimbers, Goths , Francks etc. ) or the Parthians and the Huns.....

[ADZ01982]

@megasayajinsongoku99 I think the Romans could of controlled Scotland evantualy. The Romans foughts wars on every front for hundreds of years. I am always amazed by how long they lasted the Roman Empire could of easily ended in 200ad yet the they lasted another 20 years.

[crap1453]

@ADZ01982 What are you talking about??? The Roman Empire didn't end in 220AD????? The western part of the empire ended in 476AD, and the eastern part in 1204AD. The Roman state lasted (unoccupied) at least 1700 years!

[megasayajinsongoku99]

@crap1453 the eastern roman empire(''byzantine'') ended in 1453 ...

[crap1453]

@megasayajinsongoku99 I was talking about Rome as a free independent state, after 1204 the capital was conquered by the 4th crusade, and several small competing states competed who could regain Constantinople it took over 50 years, and that state, though sporting all the titles and trying to live up to the Roman idea, was just a ghost of what had been, and in effect it could've hardly survived without the assistance of Venice and Genua, I would hardly call it independent.

[megasayajinsongoku99]

@crap1453 after the battle of Nedao the power and the dominance of the Huns was broken...

Indeed if you see this with strict criteria , than 1204 was the end for the indepedent roman empire ..

Bud think also that the people of the empire after 1204 , had aims to rebuild the roman empire .... Indepedent or not they revive the ''roman state'' .. First 1453 was the ultimate end for the roman empire ...

[crap1453]

@megasayajinsongoku99 If you want to adhere to the traditional views then yes Heraclius reign is usually set as the end of the Eastern Roman Empire, after that the same state is refered to as the Byzantine Empire, and 1453AD is traditionally the end of that Byzantine state. My view is that the most important thing is how the inhabitants of the state viewed themselves, and they viewed themselves as part of an uninterupted Roman state going back to when the Romans threw the last Etruscan king out.

[megasayajinsongoku99]

@crap1453 looooooooooooooooool ..... ok yes you are right the term ''byzantine'' or ''eastern roman empire '' is wrong . I am also against them.... They were Romans or better ''Romioi'' ......

[megasayajinsongoku99]

@crap1453 and I don't think that the people of the empire in 1453 were Romans as the Empire of Caeser or Trajan ..

I believe the population of the ''byzantine'' empire was very mixed with a greek language , a christian religion and a roman political system...

Maybe the last ''true roman empire'' was in the campaign of Heraclius against the Sassanids or in the fights against the Arabs ...

[crap1453]

@megasayajinsongoku99 continuing: Therefore in my view a Byzantine state never existed. It is the Roman state from 509BC to 1204AD, and if you will to 1453. I would prefer not to even call the surviving part after 476AD the Eastern Roman Empire, but I do so purely because it's convenient. The change of official state language and the loss of the last western territories is not enough. The fact is the inhabitants called themselves Romans (the greek version of the term).

[megasayajinsongoku99]

the roman borders on the video are wrong....... in Middle Europe the Germanics could not be conquered... The Rhine was the border..... this map is historically wrong....

[crap1453]

@megasayajinsongoku99 The "Germanics" could've probably been conquered to some extent, but after the Teutoburg disaster it was a political decision, that it wasn't worth it. The same could be said of the Picts in Scotland, after Antoninus incursion the Romans decided it wasn't economically feasible to maintain an occupation of Scotland.

[megasayajinsongoku99]

@crap1453 The battle od Teutoburg was not the only battle that the Germanics beat the Romans ..... They fought many battles and remember that the Teutons and the Cimbers could destory the Roman Empire if they had political aims ..

About the Picts you are partly right ,but against the Germanics the Roman military potential was on his limit ....

And remmber that the Germanic tribes conquered the Westroman empire ... the strongest germanic tribe was the Francs .......

[crap1453]

@megasayajinsongoku99 That's just it, they didn't have political ambitions, they didn't have a sophisticated society to sustain longterm management and occupation of territories. Instead they limited themselves to plunder. When they made serious incursions into Roman territory it was usually because they were fleeing from other stronger peoples, like the Huns, which happened for instance in what led up to the second biggest disaster the Romans had against the Germans, Adrianople 378AD.

[megasayajinsongoku99]

@crap1453 hmm... are you a girl? I am really impresed with you ... I find for the first time a girl with so great history knowledge .... why is you name ''crap1453''? I am very curious about it... actually the term ''German'' is only for the later centuries ... The right term for those tribes is '' Germanic'' ... Yes about the Goths in the battle of Adrianople you are right , they flee from the Huns.....

[crap1453]

@megasayajinsongoku99 No I'm not a girl I'm a flaming homo! :D

[megasayajinsongoku99]

@crap1453 But I refered to the Teutons and the Cimbers .. They attacked the Roman Empire in near 110 b.c. and destroyed the Roman army in two great battles ... After that they could destroy the empire if they want , but they don't had political aims , so they divided in two groups amd they were destroyed from the new roman proffesional army (after the marian reforms) ... If they were united , that it would be very difficult for the roman legions , even after the marian reforms ...

[crap1453]

@megasayajinsongoku99 Most disasters who befell the Romans in the west in the late antiquity period, was not due to the streght of these invading peoples, but due to the weakening of the western part of the state because of the ill concieved policy's of Theodosius (badly named) The Great. He allowed independent client kingdoms to be set-up inside Roman borders, and he devided the state permanently, which resulted in that only the east had the means to protect itself.

[megasayajinsongoku99]

@crap1453 Yes I agree the westroman empire was much weaker in the late antiquity,but another reason is that the germanic tribes united in big confederation tribes,so they could make a much bigger pressure than the tribes of the ''Germania'' of Tacitus.I believe another reason is the adaptivity and the flexibility of the Germanic warriors..

By the way the Romans and the Germanics beat the Huns in Catalaunian plains and a little later the Germanics butchered the Huns in the battle of Nedao.

[crap1453]

Syria and Lebanon was Roman provinces not part of a buffer zone as the poster tries to imply. The Parthians could be dangerous yes, if you were not a good general or if you hadn't prepared enough for a campaign. But they were hardly any threat to a well trained, prepared Roman army led by a good general. Rome could've crushed them at any time. The Sassanids is another matter.

[faisalleszion]

@crap1453 uhh i guess you never heard about the parthian shahanshah wiping out a complete roman army and taking the roman emporer as prisoner- but who cares anyway right, im curious about why you sound like you were there- even though you obviously dont have any knowledge on the period

[crap1453]

The poster has conveniently left out that the Roman emperor Trajan completely crushed the Parthians in 116AD taking their capital city's and occupying the whole of Mesopotamia. If he hadn't died the following year he would probably have wiped out Parthia completely. Crassus wasn't a very good general that would explain his defeat at Carrhae.

[ADZ01982]

I disagree the demise of the Roman Empire was caused to the defeat to the Persians at Carrahae. There were many many factors that caused the demise of the Empire probably the most devasting was the massive barbarian incursions in Europe. The Romans managed to conquer and hold onto alot of the middle east while Persians seemed unable to hold onto there conquests.

[samioa]

Very nice song! Thanks for posting this video