Parthia?

[Forward Union]

Im confused about this.

As I understood it, the Carthaginians defeated the Romans numerous times in the Mediterranean, until at one point Hannibal was outside the gates of Rome itself, but from fear of defeat, turned back and eventually the Carthaginian empire was destroyed by Roman retaliation...So I always understood Carthage to be Romes biggest opponent.

But now I hear that Parthia was Romes biggest opponent empire, but what the fuck was the Parthian emprie? I've never heard of it?

[RedAnarchist]

It was an old Middle Eastern empire -

Pathian Empire (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parthian)

[Sentinel]

Parthia was the successor of the old Persian empire, and the main rival of Rome in the battle of the power over the lands of Armenia, Mesopotamia (Iraq), Syria and parts of Asia Minor. It covered modern day Iran with surrounding lands.

Emperor Trajan defeated the Parthians very thoroughly, conquering the capital Ctesiphon in AD 116. Parthia still managed to survive for some time though, but the Sassanid vassal dynasty later on took power and formed a new Persian Empire, that in its turn lasted until the rise of Islam and the Arab conquerors.

[Led Zeppelin]

The Parthian empire was established by Ardashir the great...besides that pretty much all that Sentinel wrote is correct.

I've actually seen Persepolis and Pasargadae, the former capitols of the Achaemenid Persian empire.

Oh, yeah, and I've seen the tomb of Cyrus the great, which is located near Pasargadae. And also seen the tombs of 5 other kings at a mountain cave complex. Dariush the great was there too.

[Forward Union]

Thanks, how far did they get in their rivalry with the romans? did they get conquered. I know that Iraq/Iran belonged to the SPQR at some point....

[Free Left]

Thanks, how far did they get in their rivalry with the romans? did they get conquered. I know that Iraq/Iran belonged to the SPQR at some point....

No, Mesoptamia (Iraq) was never conquered completely by the Romans.
Parthia was never a rival to Rome in the sense that it threatened the ultimate stability of the Empire but it did cause a load of trouble with the Romans in Syria and their eastern frontier. Anthony came close to defeating them thoroughly but failed.
If Parthia ever REALLY threatened then Rome had the resources to drive them back.

[bolshevik butcher]

Parthias armies were reliant on horsemen and hit and run attacks i think, so they were a menace to the Romans organised fighting structure. However they didn't really have teh logisitcs or power to launch a serious cmapaign of conquest against Rome itself.

[Free Left]

Parthias armies were reliant on horsemen and hit and run attacks i think, so they were a menace to the Romans organised fighting structure. However they didn't really have teh logisitcs or power to launch a serious cmapaign of conquest against Rome itself.

Yeah, they used massed cavalry archers to wear down the opposition before wiping them out with cataphrachts (did I spell it right?).
They were very alike to the mongols in that manner of warfare.

[bolshevik butcher]

Yes that sounds right from what I've read. Fortuantley for the Romans they weren't powerrul enough to go beyond raids into Roman terriotory. They fought in many ways like the Huns did who went onto sack Rome.

[Lord Testicles]

The Parthians were famed for the "Parthian shot" thats all i knew about them really and that they were from Iran and had a lot of tension with Rome.

There is a wiki article on them that i found quite interesting.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parthia

[Sentinel]

I'd like to see the places you describe, Massoud. Iran has a great past among the glorious ancient cultures of the middle east and the Mediterranian.

Unfortunately I have to rely on information I gather from history books and the media when it comes to this region. I've always been particularly interested in the Roman Empire myself, and studied it rather intensively in my youth. :)

The Parthians were indeed always considered a serious rival in Rome, Caesar himself planned a great war against them, there were fighting under the reign of Nero as well as afterwards, culminating under Trajan.

Trajan made Armenia and Mesopotamia Roman provinces, but died soon thereafter. His heir to the throne, Hadrian, abandoned most of the new lands, east of river Eufrat. He thought the Empire had grown too large to govern.

But it was after the Sassanids took power, in a time when the Roman Empire was 'in decay' according to historians, that the eastern neighbors really posed a serious threat to the Roman hegemony in the east.

Roman emperor Valerian, for instance, was taken hostage and later on flayed by Sapor, the leader of Persia.

This fighting ceased ultimately, when from the seventh century on, most of Middle East was conquered by the arabs. Both the lands of Syria, Palestine and Egypt which were held by the Eastern Empire, and all of the Sassanid Persia.

[Forward Union]

:star:

[Lamanov]

Greatest enemy of the republic was indeed Carthage, while the greatest enemy of the empire was Parthia. Parthia was infact a Persian empire, after Macedonian conquest and before the Sasanid dinasty, that got its name from the Parthians, one of the tribes/peoples of Iranian plains.

[manic expression]

I just want to add one thing:

Hannibal refused to besiege Rome because he had no chance of winning. There were 40,000 troops available to the Romans in Rome itself (combined with Rome's defenses), and there were perhaps 1.5 million others who could be called upon outside of her walls; in other words, it would've been a death trap for Hannibal and the Carthaginian forces.

In his book "Hannibal", Theodore Aryault Dodge observed that Hannibal's judgment in NOT moving on Rome is among the greatest testaments to the Carthaginian general's prowess. I must agree.

[Leo]

Oh, yeah, and I've seen the tomb of Cyrus the great

There is a great legend about the death of Cyrus...

If anyone here read Herodotus, they will understand me.

[Spirit of Spartacus]

The Parthian shot...a parting gift, eh?

[ComradeOm]

Originally posted by manic [email protected] 28, 2007 07:33 pm
In his book "Hannibal", Theodore Aryault Dodge observed that Hannibal's judgment in NOT moving on Rome is among the greatest testaments to the Carthaginian general's prowess. I must agree.
Then just what was the entire point of invading Italy in the first place?

[RedStarOverChina]

The Carthaginians were the biggest enemies to the Roman Republic.

The Parthians emerged as a great power latter on, and continued to pose a threat to Rome when it became an Empire.

Basically the crushing defeat of Crassus (member of Triumvirate, which included Gaius Julius Caesar and Gnaeus Pompey) by Parthia in 53 BC marked the beginning of the end of the Roman Republic.


As to Hannibal, it was said that "Hannibal knew how to win a battle, but not how to use it in his advantage". Even though Hannibal kept on beating the Romans in the battlefield, he had no supply of fresh troops and resources, so his army ended up getting worse and worse in quality. In the end, the Romans decided to invade the city of Carthage itself in order to force Hannibal to retreat and protect Carthage and that's exactly what happened.

[manic expression]

Originally posted by ComradeOm+March 01, 2007 04:12 pm--> (ComradeOm @ March 01, 2007 04:12 pm)
manic [email protected] 28, 2007 07:33 pm
In his book "Hannibal", Theodore Aryault Dodge observed that Hannibal's judgment in NOT moving on Rome is among the greatest testaments to the Carthaginian general's prowess. I must agree.
Then just what was the entire point of invading Italy in the first place? [/b]
To divide Rome's Italian allies and bring them against Rome. Besieging the city of Rome would've defeated this purpose entirely; he had no resources to do so, and would've been crushed against Rome's walls within weeks (or days).

Besieging Rome was suicide, and Hannibal knew this. He wanted to isolate Rome first, and then make the coup de grace.

[ComradeOm]

Originally posted by manic [email protected] 01, 2007 07:21 pm
To divide Rome's Italian allies and bring them against Rome.
I believe that he had some success in this, no? Despite this the strategy of Fabius Maximus effectively deprived Hannibal of the set piece battle that he required to shake the foundations of Roman power.

Anyway my point here is that Hannibal's venture into Italy had no clear strategic goal or any real possibility for success.

[Hiero]

I think there were two reasons why Hannibal failed in finally sacking Rome. 1) The Carthaginian oligarchy were never fully supportive of the war. 2) Scipio Africanus.

Parthia was the limits of empire. I think it is interesting the differences in treaties with other nations, Parthia got a bit more of a say in the treaties and were never "liberated" or subjugated by the outcome of treaty.

We shouldn't however ignore Germania proper, the Romans never really crossed and conquered past the Rhine for a long time. Even then they didn't get far I don't believe, but that is beyond what I have studied. Though I believ Parthia was more centralised then the Germanian tribes.

[ComradeOm]

Originally posted by [email protected] 02, 2007 11:40 am
We shouldn't however ignore Germania proper, the Romans never really crossed and conquered past the Rhine for a long time. Even then they didn't get far I don't believe, but that is beyond what I have studied. Though I believ Parthia was more centralised then the Germanian tribes.
Germania was more a geographic and cultural term in those days. Rome was never simply fighting a "German" nation but dealing with individual tribes on a constantly shifting basis.

In contrast Parthia was a real superpower in the region, the successor of the Persian Empire, and was able to go "toe to toe" with the Eternal City. The Arsacid Dynasty was relatively centralised, the government apparatus sophisticated and the military strong. Really it was the only rival that Rome had encountered since Carthage that presented a real threat.

So very different from the "barbarians" of the Germania. Of course ironically it would be these northern tribes that would finally deliver the coup de grace to the Empire.

[manic expression]

Originally posted by ComradeOm+March 02, 2007 11:32 am--> (ComradeOm @ March 02, 2007 11:32 am)
manic [email protected] 01, 2007 07:21 pm
To divide Rome's Italian allies and bring them against Rome.
I believe that he had some success in this, no? Despite this the strategy of Fabius Maximus effectively deprived Hannibal of the set piece battle that he required to shake the foundations of Roman power.

Anyway my point here is that Hannibal's venture into Italy had no clear strategic goal or any real possibility for success. [/b]
Yes, some of Rome's allies joined Hannibal, mostly after Cannae. I would agree, however, that Hannibal was always up against immense odds, it was beyond unlikely that he succeeded as much as he did.

Hannibal did have a strategic goal, one which he had some success with, but his chances were very slim, and he knew this even before he reached the foothills of the Alps.

The Fabian tactic worked fine because Hannibal's army wasn't big enough to threaten Rome itself (Hannibal once marched to the gates of the city, which created chaos and fear within the city, and the citizens even thought the city had fallen when a group of Numidians deserted the Carthaginian ranks). Fabius himself would eventually fall victim to Hannibal's forces, but once Carthage refused to send Hannibal more forces, Rome could just ignore him and send an army to attack Carthage.

[manic expression]

Originally posted by [email protected] 02, 2007 11:40 am
I think there were two reasons why Hannibal failed in finally sacking Rome. 1) The Carthaginian oligarchy were never fully supportive of the war. 2) Scipio Africanus.
Even if Hannibal defeated Scipio Africanus at Zama (which was unlikely, even for the genius of Hannibal), the Romans would've just sent another army to North Africa.

[EwokUtopia]

This Documentary discusses Parthia, as well as the Greeks during Roman times. (http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=-1070655106701123716&q=terry+jones) The Parthians were a group of people from Turkestan who took control over Iran after the fall of the Hellenistic Seleucids. They were far more progressive and tolerant than the Imperialist Romans, and much that we know of the Persians from this time has unfortunately been tainted by Romacentric propaganda.

Watch Terry Jones entire series ""The Barbarians" which is all on Google Video for more on debunking Roman Imperialist Propaganda, which constitutes mainstream memory of that era.

[Phalanx]

Even if Hannibal defeated Scipio Africanus at Zama (which was unlikely, even for the genius of Hannibal), the Romans would've just sent another army to North Africa.

Yes, considering the vast pool of manpower avaliable to the Romans, there would've been no way Hannibal could fight a war of attrition. Much of his army was made of North African, Celtic, Iberian, or even Latin mercenaries, a somewhat unreliable source, while the Roman army drew its manpower from the Italian peninsula (later on, of course, it drew auxilleries from all over its empire, but early on much of the fighting was done by Italians).


They were far more progressive and tolerant than the Imperialist Romans, and much that we know of the Persians from this time has unfortunately been tainted by Romacentric propaganda.

I'm not sure if you could call one or the other more progressive. Both owned slaves, but early Rome had a senate, quite progressive for its day. Of course, the Parthians didn't put entire cities to the sword.