For history buffs: Roman Empire and chinese Han Empire

[Tiberius]

Roman and Persian emperors would adress one another as "brother" in official letters, Persian courtly customs and styles were adopted by the Romans, and Roman emperors even intermarried with them!
Technologically they were in no way inferior, they had irrigation networks, advanced metallurgy, Cataphracts, stirrups, Composite bows, siege warfare technology on par with the Romans, advanced medicine, they had universities which Roman citizens travelled to etc.
And finally the idea that the Romans couldn't defeat Persia because of logistics is a myth, supposing it was true, it would mean they could defeat the Persians but simply couldn't project power into their lands because of supply issues, yet the Persians repeatedly raided Roman territory, sacked Roman cities, humilitated a Roman emperor by using him as a footstool, and forced Rome to pay tribute. Will you blame that on logistics too?

Persia never stepped a foot into Rome. Rome destroyed persian Capital, killed persian crown Prince and made Persia pay Tribute. Persia had no aquaducts, No advanced streets, no concrete.

 

[TurnThyCheek]

That's ridiculous. Ctesiphon, the Persian Empire's capital, was sacked on numerous occasions by Roman armies. Has any Persian army ever actually gotten past the Roman hinterlands, let alone be able to sack Italia itself? One of the few advantages the Persians had over the Romans was their superior calvary ... especially light units and later cataphracts. But in terms of infantry, armor, weaponry, and siege equipment, the Roman Army was much better equipped than the Persian forces.

The comparison you're making is ridiculous. Italy was too far away for the Persians to realistically pose any threat to it. The Persians did on the other hand sack Roman cities like Antioch, Edessa, Caesarea. Under Khosrow II they practically wiped out the Eastern Roman army took control of Syria, Egypt and Anatolia AND reached Constantinople itself, not bad for a force outmatched quantitively and qualitatively eh?
Now as for Roman military doctrine, go pick up any book you want, the Romans gradually shifted from infantry based armies to cavalry based ones which historians themselves acknowledge heavily resembled Persian ones, in fact they were extremely similar by the time the Muslim armies emerged on the scene. The Romans literally modelled their armies on those of the Sassanids.
Roman infantry was superior to most of the Sassanid infantry who were peasant levies, but the Daylamites from northern Persia were considered equals and praised by the Romans themselves. Go look em up. They acted as guards for the emperor himself.

And let's not even talk about infrastructure ... the Roman aqueducts were centuries beyond whatever Ancient Persia had to offer. Saying that the Persian Empire was more technologically advanced than that of Rome is simply ignorant.

The Persians had advanced irrigation systems called Qanats that were used for thousands of years more than a mathcn, they built huge sophisticated walls like those of Gorgan, their fortresses were on par with those of Rome. They even used poisionous gas against the Romans at the siege of Dara. I didn't say more advanced, I said rivals. And YOU must be ignorant to deny it, they held Rome at bay for centuries and forced it to pay tribute, yet you're so arrogant you refuse to accept Persia as an equal.

And please provide factual evidence that the Romans treated Persians as equals ... AFAIK, the Romans thought the Persians were barbarians (just like the Germanic hordes).

Yazdgerd I was asked by Emperor Arcadius of Rome to become guardian of his son, the future Theodosius II, i've never heard a Roman emperor ask a Germanic chief to do the same, have you?
The Roman emperor Carcalla asked for a Parthian princesses hand in marriage and when refused declared war.
Constantine I referred to Shapur II as "My brother" in a letter to the latter. Did the Roman emperors even consider the Germanic chiefs worthy of personal correpondence let alone refer to one of them as a brother? Persian and Roman queens referred to one another as sister, and gifts were exchanged between both parties too.
EDIT: Almost forgot, Khosrow II married Maria, daughter of emperor Maurice. His son by Maria, Kavadh would later go on to be emperor. Barbarians my ***.

Persia never stepped a foot into Rome. Rome destroyed persian Capital, killed persian crown Prince and made Persia pay Tribute. Persia had no aquaducts, No advanced streets, no concrete.

Rome was too far, the Persians sacked plenty of major cities in the Roman occupied near east. I know which prince you're on about, but firstly, that was in battle, not execution, and that was because Persian kings usually fought in battles. The Persians on the other hand captured an emperor and skinned him and turned him into a trophy.
The Persians had Qanats. Obviously they had streets. Not sure about conrete, but they clearly used effective materials since many of their cities/monuments can still be seen today.

 

[hiseen]

Now the 'Roman Empire' is America.

 

[MBT 3000]

interesting

 

[Tiberius]

The comparison you're making is ridiculous. Italy was too far away for the Persians to realistically pose any threat to it. The Persians did on the other hand sack Roman cities like Antioch, Edessa, Caesarea. Under Khosrow II they practically wiped out the Eastern Roman army took control of Syria, Egypt and Anatolia AND reached Constantinople itself, not bad for a force outmatched quantitively and qualitatively eh?
Now as for Roman military doctrine, go pick up any book you want, the Romans gradually shifted from infantry based armies to cavalry based ones which historians themselves acknowledge heavily resembled Persian ones, in fact they were extremely similar by the time the Muslim armies emerged on the scene. The Romans literally modelled their armies on those of the Sassanids.
Roman infantry was superior to most of the Sassanid infantry who were peasant levies, but the Daylamites from northern Persia were considered equals and praised by the Romans themselves. Go look em up. They acted as guards for the emperor himself.

The Persians had advanced irrigation systems called Qanats that were used for thousands of years more than a mathcn, they built huge sophisticated walls like those of Gorgan, their fortresses were on par with those of Rome. They even used poisionous gas against the Romans at the siege of Dara. I didn't say more advanced, I said rivals. And YOU must be ignorant to deny it, they held Rome at bay for centuries and forced it to pay tribute, yet you're so arrogant you refuse to accept Persia as an equal.

Yazdgerd I was asked by Emperor Arcadius of Rome to become guardian of his son, the future Theodosius II, i've never heard a Roman emperor ask a Germanic chief to do the same, have you?
The Roman emperor Carcalla asked for a Parthian princesses hand in marriage and when refused declared war.
Constantine I referred to Shapur II as "My brother" in a letter to the latter. Did the Roman emperors even consider the Germanic chiefs worthy of personal correpondence let alone refer to one of them as a brother? Persian and Roman queens referred to one another as sister, and gifts were exchanged between both parties too.
EDIT: Almost forgot, Khosrow II married Maria, daughter of emperor Maurice. His son by Maria, Kavadh would later go on to be emperor. Barbarians my ***.


Rome was too far, the Persians sacked plenty of major cities in the Roman occupied near east. I know which prince you're on about, but firstly, that was in battle, not execution, and that was because Persian kings usually fought in battles. The Persians on the other hand captured an emperor and skinned him and turned him into a trophy.
The Persians had Qanats. Obviously they had streets. Not sure about conrete, but they clearly used effective materials since many of their cities/monuments can still be seen today.

What you say is rubbish.

You say Italy was too far away for Persia to attack?

Thanks for proving my point why Rome was a few levels above them. Persia could not even reach Europe, yet the Roman Empire conquered the persian capital and burned it down. Rome was too far for the persians but eprsia was within our reach to destroy.

Calling someone brother was a diplomatic thing. Caesar called Vercingetorix, the celtic enemy "his brother" in his letters. Our emperors used germanic warriors as imperial guards.

Its also funny you bring up this short time emperor who felt while he attacked Persia.

Thats the only thing you have. Rome killed the persian crown prince, which hit Persia so hard that the persian king died only weeks later and Persia felt into chaos.

For Rome, China was the equal, Persia were savages, oriental despots.

Their streets were primitive and followed no higher system. They had no channels reaching thousands of km. They had no concrete. The persians did not even have higher metallurgy.

 

[vostok]

Fun fact Caesar was never roman emperor. The first was was his sucessor Octavian (Augustus)

He was emperor of the Northen Legions. It was military rank back in those days.

 

[Tiberius]

He was emperor of the Northen Legions. It was military rank back in those days.

No, emperor was a political rank after Caesar. Infact the title itself was taken from his name Caesar. You must take the difference. In the republic, emperor was a military rank. later on it became Emperor on the sens of an Empire.

 

[vostok]

No, emperor was a political rank after Caesar. Infact the title itself was taken from his name Caesar. You must take the difference. In the republic, emperor was a military rank. later on it became Emperor on the sens of an Empire.

I just said it - he was emperor and it was military rank in those days.
But even later Romans consider Rome (and Italy) as republic and "the imperium" was their conquered lands outside Italy.

 

[TurnThyCheek]

What you say is rubbish.

You say Italy was too far away for Persia to attack?

Thanks for proving my point why Rome was a few levels above them. Persia could not even reach Europe, yet the Roman Empire conquered the persian capital and burned it down. Rome was too far for the persians but eprsia was within our reach to destroy.

Calling someone brother was a diplomatic thing. Caesar called Vercingetorix, the celtic enemy "his brother" in his letters. Our emperors used germanic warriors as imperial guards.

Its also funny you bring up this short time emperor who felt while he attacked Persia.

Thats the only thing you have. Rome killed the persian crown prince, which hit Persia so hard that the persian king died only weeks later and Persia felt into chaos.

For Rome, China was the equal, Persia were savages, oriental despots.

Their streets were primitive and followed no higher system. They had no channels reaching thousands of km. They had no concrete. The persians did not even have higher metallurgy.

The pink line is the border, the red represents the furthest the Romans penetrated into Persian territory, the blue represents the furthest the Persians penetrated into Roman territory. Tell me, looking at the border, who struck further into who's lands? The Romans never penetrated the Iranian plateau once in their centuries long conflict. Look how close the Persians got to constantinople. If you consider that evidence that Persia was inferior then I say Rome was pathetic for failing to reach Persian held Khorasan and central asia. And don't the Persians get any slack for logistical issues to to get Rome? After all they are inferior. If anything they should get MORE slack.

Evidence for the Vercingetorix claim?
And yes the Romans did use Germanic guards, when they were declining. The Germanics were called in because of manpower issues. That's literally one of the things historians lament. The decline of Rome and barbarians taking over.

Emperor > Crown prince. And Parthia did not fall into chaos.

Ctesiphon was marvelled at by the Romans. You should look it up. It was a rich, cosmopolitan city with good clean streets. Qanats do go thousands of KM in length. Persian armor and weapons were good enough that the Romans copied them and looted them from Persian dead.

 

[AUSTERLITZ]

View attachment 491839 The pink line is the border, the red represents the furthest the Romans penetrated into Persian territory, the blue represents the furthest the Persians penetrated into Roman territory. Tell me, looking at the border, who struck further into who's lands? The Romans never penetrated the Iranian plateau once in their centuries long conflict. Look how close the Persians got to constantinople. If you consider that evidence that Persia was inferior then I say Rome was pathetic for failing to reach Persian held Khorasan and central asia. And don't the Persians get any slack for logistical issues to to get Rome? After all they are inferior. If anything they should get MORE slack.

Evidence for the Vercingetorix claim?
And yes the Romans did use Germanic guards, when they were declining. The Germanics were called in because of manpower issues. That's literally one of the things historians lament. The decline of Rome and barbarians taking over.

Emperor > Crown prince. And Parthia did not fall into chaos.

Ctesiphon was marvelled at by the Romans. You should look it up. It was a rich, cosmopolitan city with good clean streets. Qanats do go thousands of KM in length. Persian armor and weapons were good enough that the Romans copied them and looted them from Persian dead.

Are you talking about Roman empire vs parthians or late-roman and byzantines vs sassanid.
In roman vs parthian - romans had advantage.They couldnt conquer due to logistics and scorched earth,and inability to transfer too many legions from western fronts.They sacked ctesiphon multiple times and usually ended wars on more advantageous terms.
In sassanid-byzantine/eastern roman times it was equal, and sassanids can be said to even have a advantage in pitched battles usually.Byzantine and sassanid emperors called each other brothers and accepted themselves as more or less equals,while roman emperor in its peak never accepted parthians as equals.Augustus got back crassus's lost eagles just by using the threat of a massed legion invasion.

 

[TurnThyCheek]

Are you talking about Roman empire vs parthians or late-roman and byzantines vs sassanid.

Both periods as a whole, the argument started out whether the Romans/Byzantines saw the Parthians/Sassanids as equals, so I drew on both periods.

In roman vs parthian - romans had advantage.They couldnt conquer due to logistics and scorched earth,and inability to transfer too many legions from western fronts.They sacked ctesiphon multiple times and usually ended wars on more advantageous terms.

100% agreed. But the Parthians did possess sufficient military strength to occupy Syria and Anatolia on occasion. They also landed some humilitating defeats on the Romans and kept themselves independent, they couldn't be forced to do anything against their will, also during this period during which the Romans were dominant the Parthians didn't pay any tribute to the former, to my knowledge.
EDIT: Forgot to mention, the Parthians faced much more formidable opponents to their east like the Central Asian nomads, so the same argument can be made for them, in fact, the Parthians it can be said did a much better job than Rome considering it faced a mighty empire on one side and deadly nomads on the other, whilst Rome had to deal with comparitively softer Germanic tribes.

In sassanid-byzantine/eastern roman times it was mostly equal, and sassanids can be said to even have a advantage in pitched battles usually.

Id argue the Sassanids enjoyed dominance against the Romans and more so after the partition of the empire. The Sassanids had good field armies, introduced high quality infantry which their predecessors lacked, had excellent siege warfare capabilities which they used to extract tribute from the Romans, something the Romans weren't able to do to themselves. So I stand by my argument, the Parthians/Sassanians were in no way inferior to Rome.

Byzantine and sassanid emperors called each other brothers and accepted themselves as more or less equals,while roman emperor in its peak never accepted parthians as equals.Augustus got back crassus's lost eagles just by using the threat of a massed legion invasion.

Sorry totally forgot about this bit. Evidence for Augustus's threat? I know Mark Antony was a superior general to Augustus and he failed in his massive invasion of Parthia, how would Augustus have succeeded? I know Augustus played up propaganda in Rome that he managed to get the Parthians to return the eagles but that's a testament of his Political skill and not Romes military might.

 

[Tiberius]

View attachment 491839 The pink line is the border, the red represents the furthest the Romans penetrated into Persian territory, the blue represents the furthest the Persians penetrated into Roman territory. Tell me, looking at the border, who struck further into who's lands? The Romans never penetrated the Iranian plateau once in their centuries long conflict. Look how close the Persians got to constantinople. If you consider that evidence that Persia was inferior then I say Rome was pathetic for failing to reach Persian held Khorasan and central asia. And don't the Persians get any slack for logistical issues to to get Rome? After all they are inferior. If anything they should get MORE slack.

Evidence for the Vercingetorix claim?
And yes the Romans did use Germanic guards, when they were declining. The Germanics were called in because of manpower issues. That's literally one of the things historians lament. The decline of Rome and barbarians taking over.

Emperor > Crown prince. And Parthia did not fall into chaos.

Ctesiphon was marvelled at by the Romans. You should look it up. It was a rich, cosmopolitan city with good clean streets. Qanats do go thousands of KM in length. Persian armor and weapons were good enough that the Romans copied them and looted them from Persian dead.

I forgot, that they were also genetical inferior. Cultural inferior, technological inferior.

Ctesiphon was burned down and ruined by the roman army. It was the persian capital.

And yes,Parthia felt into chaos. After we killed their crown prince, the persian king felt into depression and was killed soon after. Then some form of civil war started in Persia.

And please show me those aquaeducts from Persia. I suspect its some shitty small channels and not like ours.

 

[TurnThyCheek]

I forgot, that they were also genetical inferior. Cultural inferior, technological inferior.

Ctesiphon was burned down and ruined by the roman army. It was the persian capital.

And yes,Parthia felt into chaos. After we killed their crown prince, the persian king felt into depression and was killed soon after. Then some form of civil war started in Persia.

And please show me those aquaeducts from Persia. I suspect its some shitty small channels and not like ours.

You win. No amount of arguing will convince you. By the way your genetic superiority was seriously ruined by incoming Germanic tribes.

 

[Tiberius]

You win. No amount of arguing will convince you. By the way your genetic superiority was seriously ruined by incoming Germanic tribes.

No it was not. There is no germanic trace of DNA detectable

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_history_of_Italy

Molecular anthropology found no evidence of significant Northern geneflow into the Italian peninsula over the last 1500 years. On the other hand, the bulk of Italian ethnogenesis occurred prior to Germanic or non-European invasions. DNA studies show that only the Greek colonization of Sicily and Southern Italy had a lasting effect on the local genetic landscape.[12][13]

You win. No amount of arguing will convince you. By the way your genetic superiority was seriously ruined by incoming Germanic tribes.

btw

this shit was best the persians were capable to do:

Meanwhile in Rome

The Persians did never reach that level of art. Their statues always appeared clumsy and rather primitive. Do you have an explanation for that?

 

[AUSTERLITZ]

Sorry totally forgot about this bit. Evidence for Augustus's threat? I know Mark Antony was a superior general to Augustus and he failed in his massive invasion of Parthia, how would Augustus have succeeded? I know Augustus played up propaganda in Rome that he managed to get the Parthians to return the eagles but that's a testament of his Political skill and not Romes military might.

Well mark antony was a great tactical general,but a bad strategist.He didn't pay attention to logistics at all ,which is why his campaign ended in failure despite him winning every tactical engagement.Augustus on the other hand was a great organizer,and for field battles he had 2 great generals -Agrippa(who defeated antony) and Tiberius and Germanicus later.Roman armies well led could defeat parthian armies comprehensively ,which publius ventidius bassus(one of caesar's generals) had proved after carrhae despite outnumbered.Parthians accepted peace because they knew augustus could be appeased by returning the eagles to satisfy roman honour.A symbolic gesture with little material loss except some prestige was far better than a new roman army,now with no distractions or civil war(augustus supreme ruler now, whereas antony left and never returned because he had to prepare for war agianst augustus) coming at them.Remember at this point in time Rome didn't have to station large number of legions in britannia and germany,so augustus could mobilize 20 legions plus auxillaries from gaul,greece,germania,numidia,egypt,thrace and asia minor if he wanted to ,which would have been a great threat.Augustus got his eagles and roman honour back and had a secure eastern flank and could concentrate on the balkans and germania and lat bits of spain.Parthia avoided a very dangerous war and had a secure west flank.Both got benefits.