
Parthia: Rome's Ablest Competitor - HNLurker2
https://www.ancient.eu/article/1445/parthia-romes-ablest-competitor/
======
Ozumandias
I have to be careful reading articles like this. I have hundreds of hours
logged in 2004's Rome Total War. All it takes is reading some interesting fact
about Rome's military or one of their enemies and I can find myself losing a
day or two in a new campaign. Even though the first Rome Total War came out 15
years ago, it is still the pinnacle of historical simulation video games to
me. Simple yet endless replay value in trying out new tactics and strategies.

~~~
Mobius01
Ah, a kindred spirit. Despite the quality of the sequel, the original Rome
Total War has a certain charm and simplicity that’s hard to replicate.

------
RcouF1uZ4gsC
One of the great "what-ifs" of history is that when Julius Caesar was
assassinated, he was preparing for a campaign against the Parthian Empire.
What if, Julius Caesar was not assassinated and was able to launch his
invasion of Parthia.

Julius Caesar was one of the greatest generals in history, and arguably Rome's
best general (with the possible exception of Scipio Africanus). In addition,
as evidenced by his visit to the tomb of Alexander the Great, he idolized
Alexander, and I am sure would have loved to try to do what Alexander did in
conquering Persia. Years later Trajan did figure out how to invade the
Parthian capital city of Ctesiphon by moving columns down the Euphrates - so a
successful invasion was possible.

With Julius Caesar's assassination Rome fell into civil war. Mark Antony tried
an invasion, but as history showed, he was not nearly the general Julius
Caesar was. Julius's successor, Augustus, was not a military genius in any
sense, and was too worried about his position in Rome to risk an invasion of
Parthia, and was content just to get the Roman standards back that had been
lost by Crassus.

Subsequent history may have been a lot different if Julius Caesar had not been
assassinated when he was.

~~~
yourbandsucks
Julius Caesar was one of the greatest generals according to a history written
by the victors. Namely, him.

Not that I'm saying you're wrong, but invading Parthia would be a rather
different story than invading Gaul.

~~~
thaumasiotes
> Julius Caesar was one of the greatest generals according to a history
> written by the victors. Namely, him.

Well, sure, but when the question is "who's good at winning?", it's not
obviously wrong to see what the victors think.

Hannibal was one of the greatest generals according to a history written by
the victors, even though the victors despised him.

~~~
RcouF1uZ4gsC
Another example is Robert E. Lee, and Ulysses S. Grant. Even though Grant was
the winner, often Lee is perceived as the better general. Though I think if
you ask historians now who was the better general, I think many will say Grant
as he had a deeper understanding of overall strategy (including logistics,
manpower, etc) which is more important than whatever tactical brilliance Lee
may have had.

~~~
johnzim
I read a very interesting account of how poorly Lee in particular and the
Confederacy in general prosecuted the Civil War. They misunderstood their
political goals absolutely and instead of simply fighting a war of defense -
holding out long enough to appear a legitimate nation in their own right,
(essentially running down the clock), they fought to take and hold territory
that they didn't need. Tactical brilliance is nothing without sound strategy.

Montgomery vs Rommel is a good example of that too!

------
dreen
Image dump of the article:
[https://i.imgur.com/jRs9P6V.jpg](https://i.imgur.com/jRs9P6V.jpg)

~~~
farummi
You are doing god's work.

------
mothsonasloth
An Iranian friend of mine who is a history buff (but not qualified in it) says
that the fall of Parthia to the Arab conquests was galvanised in Persian
culture and is one of the driving factors of hostilities between modern day
Iran and the Arabian peninsula.

Since Iran then was then subsequently ruled by Caliphs, Turkish Sultans and
then western rulers. There is an inferiority complex in Persian politics.

It's an interesting thought, although I am not too sure how much bearing it
has in reality.

~~~
eternalban
Parthians did not fall to Arabs. Either you misunderstood your friend or s/he
is indeed "not qualified".

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parthian_Empire](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parthian_Empire)

It was the 3rd Iranian empire (I do not consider Elam to be Iranian) that fell
to the Arabs, the Sassanian:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sassanian_Empire](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sassanian_Empire)

To an extent, as an Iranian, it is partially true that post Sassanian, no
other Iranian dynasty had command over the entirety of historic Iranian lands
and boundaries. The last Iranian dynasty, the Pahlavi dynasty of the 20th
century came closest.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Iranian_dynasties_and_...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Iranian_dynasties_and_countries#Direct_Iranian_dynasties)

> There is an inferiority complex in Persian politics.

I'm quite confident that mindset is a thing of the past. (Look at China.)
Currently of course we are burdened with a regime that is polluting Iranian
culture. But this too shall pass, God willing.

[p.s. regarding other mis-statements]:

> Since Iran then was then subsequently ruled by Caliphs, Turkish Sultans and
> then western rulers.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samanids](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samanids)

That's a pretty substantial piece of real estate, agreed?

> western rulers.

Possibly you are referring to the Pahlavi Shahs (?), in which case it
important to point out that if the Shah of Iran was in fact a puppet of the
West they would not have been so pleased to see him go. You may want to take a
trip to Iran and ask the natives what are their feelings towards the Pahlavi
dynasty these days ...

~~~
mothsonasloth
Thanks for the insight. Does the current regime like to draw on these
historical periods to foment partriotism / nationalism?

I am planning to visit Iran someday (Shiraz, Damavand and Ifshahan)

~~~
eternalban
No. The clerical class in Iran was introduced by the Safavid dynasty. This
same dynasty -- Shiite Turks -- also forced the conversion of Iran into a Shia
country. It was much more tolerant before that. So their point of reference
starts with the Safavids.

When they first came to power, one of the more unhinged specimens of the
Mullahs, the hanging judge Khalkhali, wanted to demolish Persepolis. Iran's
heritage and history threatens them.

It is also quite upsetting to the regime that every year Iranians gather at
the tomb of Hafiz (Shiraz) and Persepolis (very near Shiraz).

But if you pay attention, you will note that the "Supreme Leader" likes to sit
on a chair with clothing that very much resembles the iconic relief of Dariush
the Great. :-)

[https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/af/Darius_I...](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/af/Darius_In_Parse.JPG)

Their supporters in the west likewise push the extremist terrorist cult of MEK
as the alternative. I sometimes wonder if this is implicitly a threat to
Iranians of who will come to power should they throw out the Mullahs (who
clearly had and still have foreign support). What is oddly consistent across
the histrionic divide is a shared interest in propaganda against the Pahlavi
dynasty. No less than NYTimes is on this game.

Go figure ..

------
eternalban
I would question that notion. Sassanians were quite capable. In fact, some
Iranian historians consider them superior to Hakhamaneshian.

I wonder if there persists a desire to forget about the Battle of Edessa?

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Edessa](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Edessa)

~~~
swasheck
sassanians were very capable, to be sure and, to be fair, though the article
doesn't really specify the date, edessa and valerian were centuries later in
rome's history, near the tail-end of the unified empire (30-ish years before
diocletian).

so i'm not sure there's a desire to forget about the battle of edessa, or the
skinning of valerian - it's in the history, but the tone of the article seems
to be regarding the threats to the emerging and established empire and not the
crumbling one.

~~~
eternalban
Fair points all around. (I thought the skinning bit was debated?)

~~~
swasheck
you're absolutely correct. my apologies.

------
B1FF_PSUVM
The Silk Road map image leads to a 2012 article about it:

[https://www.ancient.eu/image/146/the-silk-
road/](https://www.ancient.eu/image/146/the-silk-road/)

which in turn has a map image with better resolution:

[https://www.ancient.eu/uploads/images/146.png?v=1485680513](https://www.ancient.eu/uploads/images/146.png?v=1485680513)

------
namdnay
Obligatory plug of the excellent "The History of Rome" podcast

~~~
smogcutter
Love Mike Duncan! I’m going through his “Revolutions” podcast now and it’s
terrific. Also worth mentioning Dan Carlin’s podcast about the Achaemenids,
obviously about an earlier period of Iranian history than tfa but very good
stuff. He covers a great deal more than the Greek wars, and in the west it’s a
story we don’t usually hear told from the “other side”.

Fwiw though I’ll take generally Mike Duncan over Carlin - Carlin’s a world
class storyteller but imo he gets too caught up in hypotheticals and war
stories. Duncan doesn’t have the quite the same “favorite professor” delivery
but he covers things from more angles.

------
DerSaidin
The story behind
[https://ageofempires.fandom.com/wiki/Parthian_Tactics](https://ageofempires.fandom.com/wiki/Parthian_Tactics)
:)

------
sho
What a great domain name!

