Anyone else hate the fact that when youre Roman legions (the ones from Central Italy , The legionares) always have to be shipped back to Italy for re-training? :(
I was fighting Lusotananians and the rebels over there, after a few succesfull battles i had to ship my Legions back to Rome for re-training, and while they were away the Lusotanians took away 5 years worth of conquest settlements. Same happened in Greece when i had to ship my troops for re-training. Sucks...
@Legolasas26 That's why you make logistics columns. 1-2 of each unit type to replace fallen men. You can shift around men by dragging one unit card over another. Then you can send the logistics column back for retraining. For larger distances use more columns.
Additionally your field armies shouldn't sit in cities after conquering, use cheap units (skirmishers) to garrison cities. If your logistics columns arrive before they are needed have them sit in cities at the front.
I am Greek and I am an true admirer of all the Persian successive cultures - alongside with Greeks, they were the first true modern cultures according to me without belittling the amazing Chinese and Indians of course.
Do not worry about Western Europeans, they love their Romans! Hehe!
No. Romans casually beat the Parthians but usually they were losing at a rate of at least 40%-60%. Plus, Roman loses were always catastrophic while Parthian loses as DJKAYZEE correctly said, were more setbacks.
Romans despite having multiple times the manpower of Parthians/Persians could never do anything much more than border wars - Persians were getting much deaper. Finally, it was Roman successors, the Byzantines under Heraclius that dealt the big blow, albeit at a time the Byzantine army was a Greek-Armenian thingie largely employing Persian tactics (cataphracts, mounted archers etc.).
A pity how these wonderful Empires wore themselves that much - fortunately Byzantium continued for much longer.
The emperor Trajan captured Ctesiphon in 116, but his successor Hadrian decided to willingly return Ctesiphon in 117 as part of a peace settlement. The Roman general Avidius Cassius captured Ctesiphon during another Parthian war in 164, but abandoned it when peace was concluded. In 197, the emperor Septimius Severus sacked Ctesiphon and carried off thousands of its inhabitants, whom he sold into slavery.
wow dude wtf , dont manipulate history to make the romans sound superior, trajan did capture cteisphon but then again cteisphon never had the significance that rome had, cteisphon was a western capital laying on mesopotamia and among 4 other capitals of the parthian ,the roman army never reached the iranian mainland, rome could never dream to conquer
They had learnt the lessons of the Greek conquest, they invested in heavy troops but also keeping also lighter ones, more agile, then having cavarly archers and of course the famous cataphracts, a tactic developed as a response to the phalanxe system used by Greeks and often short of half-used by Romans.
The first battle in late 1st century was a catastrophe for Rome: Crassus saw his army being decimated. Romans would lose many more before winning some wars but it was a 60%-40% for Parthians.
Actually Romans had it easy in Greece where 9 out of 10 states collaborated with them - they had to fight only the Macedonian kingdom and this one they beat it in some 60 years time (not really fast) and only after the repeated treason of local aristocrats against the kings. All Minor Asia was already allied to Romans. Romans did not have directly an Empire over Greece and Minor Asia in 1st century BC but client states.
However despite winnng mainly thanks to their excellent political skills
.. they kept on insisting it was thanks to their fighting skills which were not bad of course but they were neither exceptional (they had horrible losses numerous times - nobody had ever lost 50,000 men in one battle, the Romans had done it more than 1 time!).
Thus when they met the Parthians they were taken by surprise. They thought "what the hell, Greeks beat them, we beat Greeks, we are 2 times better than them"... but things do not go like this... Parthians had a much more evolved army
In "real history" the Romans were slaughtered over and over by the Persians. The Persians won every major battle bar one, capturing several Roman emperors, using them as slaves and footstools. The lucky ones had molten gold poured down their throats. Apart from brief lunges into into western regions including the capital the Romans did nothing and were unable to even get close to a Persian Emperor. Persia, alongside her German cousins and the Teutoberg forest, was Rome's great humiliation.
Adding to your comment, abha1844, the Romans adopted many Persian customs, including adding heavily armoured cavalry (cataphracts) to their military, weaponry, battle tactics, tamgas, medallions, court customs, and costumes.
You idiot, I want you to look at my statement again and find where I said the Romans conquerored Iran....can't can you? Moron, read first then form an agrument. Two I said the Romans held their own and even conquerored the capital of the Parthians and Sassanid empire which was Ctesiphon. Why don't you read about Trajan, Septimus Severus, and Galerius Maximianus. Oh, and the Persians and Parthians could never conqueror Rome or the Byzantines (Eastern Roman Empire) either. Sounds like a stalemate.
Reading and writing were invented in our land we invented the human rights, the first relegious book is avesta and god and satan(ahuramazd-ahriman) is our invention too the Romano gypsy are nothing against us
Valerian had no chance against the sasanids ctesiphon -ZAZANA weren't conqured -some gypsy thought they conqured us but nothing happend hahaha
Well, let's examine your statement closely. Geography did not favour Parthian or Sassanid Iran, as Ctesiphon was located on a large, plain field in modern day Iraq. On the other hand, Constantinople had the protection of a body of water, but the Sassanids DID manage to once besiege the city with the Avars.
I would say the Romans had the upper hand against the Parthians overall, whereas the Sassanids had the upper hand of the Romans-Byzantine overall.
it is a stalemate, and while romans did manage to capture (not conquer cteisphon) the concept of capital was different with the iranians in compared to roman and byzantines, for parthians and sassanids , cteisphon was one of several capitals , where as for romans theere was only one capital,
for parthians and later sassanids, cteisphon was an important fortress midway between mesopotamia and mainland iran,
romans never dared to enter the mainland, and sack the inner iranian capitals
The Parthian general in that video could probably have won with a lot fewer casualties. What I tend to do is charge and then withdraw within a few seconds of my cav engaging. There's another cav nearby, which begins charging (usually from another angle) as soon as the previous group have left. And only ever engage in melee once I'm out of arrows. Unless I have to charge some archers or something.
@daryush55 actually that tactic was reasonable. he did the same thing you described roughly. missiles would have been ineffective against the testudos so he opened them with a light cav charge, withdrew and engaged with heavy cavalry. waiting would have just been a waste of arrows..
When the roman empire invaded Persia (parthians) they got easily slaughtered because they underestimated the parthians, it was said that 1 parthian warrior could take on 3 roman soldiers, the romans got easily beaten and when they realized that they couldn't conquer Persia they aimed for Greece which states where easily beaten one by one
Actually, Roman soldiers remained effective even against heavy cavalry forces all through the republican and imperial periods. What caused the roman empire's decline was economic catastrophe. Possibly caused by the first outbreak of measles. An outbreak that the average citizen would have had no immunity to.
Don't know if you are trolling or merely misinformed, but the video is taken from the best RTW mod out there: Europa Barbarorum. There was only Pahlava (Parthian) cavalry on the video.
Go Parthian Persians!
persiandudeee 10 months ago
Nice Armenian music....it is isn't it?
a09tma 1 year ago
Anyone else hate the fact that when youre Roman legions (the ones from Central Italy , The legionares) always have to be shipped back to Italy for re-training? :(
I was fighting Lusotananians and the rebels over there, after a few succesfull battles i had to ship my Legions back to Rome for re-training, and while they were away the Lusotanians took away 5 years worth of conquest settlements. Same happened in Greece when i had to ship my troops for re-training. Sucks...
Legolasas26 1 year ago
@Legolasas26 Those are reformed legionaries.
mainkilla 1 year ago
@Legolasas26 That's why you make logistics columns. 1-2 of each unit type to replace fallen men. You can shift around men by dragging one unit card over another. Then you can send the logistics column back for retraining. For larger distances use more columns.
Additionally your field armies shouldn't sit in cities after conquering, use cheap units (skirmishers) to garrison cities. If your logistics columns arrive before they are needed have them sit in cities at the front.
Salamanderx1 1 year ago
Comment removed
Salamanderx1 1 year ago
wait, in this mod, were the persians speaking sassanian persian??
if so, i am extremely happy and will get this mod.
ilghazi 1 year ago
I am Greek and I am an true admirer of all the Persian successive cultures - alongside with Greeks, they were the first true modern cultures according to me without belittling the amazing Chinese and Indians of course.
Do not worry about Western Europeans, they love their Romans! Hehe!
No. Romans casually beat the Parthians but usually they were losing at a rate of at least 40%-60%. Plus, Roman loses were always catastrophic while Parthian loses as DJKAYZEE correctly said, were more setbacks.
papagamias 2 years ago
Romans despite having multiple times the manpower of Parthians/Persians could never do anything much more than border wars - Persians were getting much deaper. Finally, it was Roman successors, the Byzantines under Heraclius that dealt the big blow, albeit at a time the Byzantine army was a Greek-Armenian thingie largely employing Persian tactics (cataphracts, mounted archers etc.).
A pity how these wonderful Empires wore themselves that much - fortunately Byzantium continued for much longer.
papagamias 2 years ago
The emperor Trajan captured Ctesiphon in 116, but his successor Hadrian decided to willingly return Ctesiphon in 117 as part of a peace settlement. The Roman general Avidius Cassius captured Ctesiphon during another Parthian war in 164, but abandoned it when peace was concluded. In 197, the emperor Septimius Severus sacked Ctesiphon and carried off thousands of its inhabitants, whom he sold into slavery.
Gab1n0III 2 years ago
wow dude wtf , dont manipulate history to make the romans sound superior, trajan did capture cteisphon but then again cteisphon never had the significance that rome had, cteisphon was a western capital laying on mesopotamia and among 4 other capitals of the parthian ,the roman army never reached the iranian mainland, rome could never dream to conquer
DJKAYZEE 2 years ago
They had learnt the lessons of the Greek conquest, they invested in heavy troops but also keeping also lighter ones, more agile, then having cavarly archers and of course the famous cataphracts, a tactic developed as a response to the phalanxe system used by Greeks and often short of half-used by Romans.
The first battle in late 1st century was a catastrophe for Rome: Crassus saw his army being decimated. Romans would lose many more before winning some wars but it was a 60%-40% for Parthians.
papagamias 2 years ago
Actually Romans had it easy in Greece where 9 out of 10 states collaborated with them - they had to fight only the Macedonian kingdom and this one they beat it in some 60 years time (not really fast) and only after the repeated treason of local aristocrats against the kings. All Minor Asia was already allied to Romans. Romans did not have directly an Empire over Greece and Minor Asia in 1st century BC but client states.
However despite winnng mainly thanks to their excellent political skills
papagamias 2 years ago
.. they kept on insisting it was thanks to their fighting skills which were not bad of course but they were neither exceptional (they had horrible losses numerous times - nobody had ever lost 50,000 men in one battle, the Romans had done it more than 1 time!).
Thus when they met the Parthians they were taken by surprise. They thought "what the hell, Greeks beat them, we beat Greeks, we are 2 times better than them"... but things do not go like this... Parthians had a much more evolved army
papagamias 2 years ago
yes totally correct
DJKAYZEE 2 years ago
In "real history" the Romans were slaughtered over and over by the Persians. The Persians won every major battle bar one, capturing several Roman emperors, using them as slaves and footstools. The lucky ones had molten gold poured down their throats. Apart from brief lunges into into western regions including the capital the Romans did nothing and were unable to even get close to a Persian Emperor. Persia, alongside her German cousins and the Teutoberg forest, was Rome's great humiliation.
abha1844 2 years ago
Adding to your comment, abha1844, the Romans adopted many Persian customs, including adding heavily armoured cavalry (cataphracts) to their military, weaponry, battle tactics, tamgas, medallions, court customs, and costumes.
99999999988888888 2 years ago
very true
DJKAYZEE 2 years ago
is this a game!!?
in real history romans had no chance against parthians and later sasanian-iranians.
SchahZAZAhuseyn 2 years ago
Umm, sir, in real history the Romans held their own and even conquered the capitals of both the Parthians and Sassanians.
And yes this is a game.
555roc 2 years ago
Real history isn't your game.
read about general Surena or Ardashir romans couldn't conqure the Iranians.
SchahZAZAhuseyn 2 years ago
You idiot, I want you to look at my statement again and find where I said the Romans conquerored Iran....can't can you? Moron, read first then form an agrument. Two I said the Romans held their own and even conquerored the capital of the Parthians and Sassanid empire which was Ctesiphon. Why don't you read about Trajan, Septimus Severus, and Galerius Maximianus. Oh, and the Persians and Parthians could never conqueror Rome or the Byzantines (Eastern Roman Empire) either. Sounds like a stalemate.
555roc 2 years ago
read ! this gypsys are our little brothers.
septimus severus maximianus....
hahaha funy names
Reading and writing were invented in our land we invented the human rights, the first relegious book is avesta and god and satan(ahuramazd-ahriman) is our invention too the Romano gypsy are nothing against us
Valerian had no chance against the sasanids ctesiphon -ZAZANA weren't conqured -some gypsy thought they conqured us but nothing happend hahaha
SchahZAZAhuseyn 2 years ago
no writing and reading wasnt invented in our land man, come on dont exxaggerate
iran has had its share of great contributions, but when you over exaggerate people wont take u seriously
DJKAYZEE 2 years ago
Well, let's examine your statement closely. Geography did not favour Parthian or Sassanid Iran, as Ctesiphon was located on a large, plain field in modern day Iraq. On the other hand, Constantinople had the protection of a body of water, but the Sassanids DID manage to once besiege the city with the Avars.
I would say the Romans had the upper hand against the Parthians overall, whereas the Sassanids had the upper hand of the Romans-Byzantine overall.
99999999988888888 2 years ago
it is a stalemate, and while romans did manage to capture (not conquer cteisphon) the concept of capital was different with the iranians in compared to roman and byzantines, for parthians and sassanids , cteisphon was one of several capitals , where as for romans theere was only one capital,
for parthians and later sassanids, cteisphon was an important fortress midway between mesopotamia and mainland iran,
romans never dared to enter the mainland, and sack the inner iranian capitals
DJKAYZEE 2 years ago
The Parthian general in that video could probably have won with a lot fewer casualties. What I tend to do is charge and then withdraw within a few seconds of my cav engaging. There's another cav nearby, which begins charging (usually from another angle) as soon as the previous group have left. And only ever engage in melee once I'm out of arrows. Unless I have to charge some archers or something.
Anyways, good video! :)
daryush55 2 years ago
True dat, this video was kinda quick and dirty though, thus Pahlava was controlled by the AI and did lots of stupid stuff.
stupacshakur 2 years ago
@daryush55 actually that tactic was reasonable. he did the same thing you described roughly. missiles would have been ineffective against the testudos so he opened them with a light cav charge, withdrew and engaged with heavy cavalry. waiting would have just been a waste of arrows..
TacTeppo 6 months ago
When the roman empire invaded Persia (parthians) they got easily slaughtered because they underestimated the parthians, it was said that 1 parthian warrior could take on 3 roman soldiers, the romans got easily beaten and when they realized that they couldn't conquer Persia they aimed for Greece which states where easily beaten one by one
FreedomFighter08 2 years ago
THat's right
FreedomFighter08 2 years ago
Actually, Roman soldiers remained effective even against heavy cavalry forces all through the republican and imperial periods. What caused the roman empire's decline was economic catastrophe. Possibly caused by the first outbreak of measles. An outbreak that the average citizen would have had no immunity to.
PointMan100000000000 3 years ago
Right fucking on!
Methuselah18 3 years ago
Oh, sorry, I thought your comment was based on the video not real life. Yes, you are right, the Roman infantry was no match for the cavalry.
generalpatton3 3 years ago
Don't know if you are trolling or merely misinformed, but the video is taken from the best RTW mod out there: Europa Barbarorum. There was only Pahlava (Parthian) cavalry on the video.
Anyway, great video stupac!
Aemilius Paulus
generalpatton3 3 years ago
awesome thank you
kavidos 3 years ago
well done
IdoDarklyCute 3 years ago 2