Parthian and Sassanid Persian empires; How big threat were they to Rome?

[Constantius]

I will gather information, to fill this thread as much as possible. But a new young user has requested a discussion on Persia, this is ab it Rome orientated, but perhaps we can show how these debates grow.


The Question/ subject here: How big a threat was Parthian Empire and then its later successor Sassanid Persia, to Rome? Please no Unsupported facts, yes opinions but still with evidence

[Blatta Optima Maxima]

Probably none whatsoever, until they divided into ERE and WRE. Then it became a bit of a treat to the eastern border towns.

[parasa.b]

If you ask me I would tell you that they were the most powerful enemie of rome and there's nothing to be said in this case as the Romans have agree this . But I can even tell you that they were more powerful that Romans in army (Sassanids not parthians )
let me explain to you :
the Romans march threw Iran by the time of Orod I (who was a weak Parthian ruler ) for the first time and it caused a terrible defeat . And the main reason of their defeats was the Parthian cavalry . After that the Romans controled parthians by building forts and sattlement (and accualy the weak Parthian rulers help tham )
but after a while a more powerful dynasty appears wich was more powerful than parthians in every thing . The Sassanids defeat romans by the time of shapur I . After that the Sassanid lords had war with each other and the Romans defeat Sassanid and they even captured messopotamia .
After that the history was repeated ! Julian the apostate march threw Iran and he and his big army were burned by Sassanid cavalry .
The Romano Persian wars were with out success for both sides because :
1. Roman forts and settlement in the ranks
2. Both sides were in fight with other people
but the power of Sassanid army improves so much by the time khosrau I .this was because that some roman universes came to Iran and start working in Gondi shapur university . They taught them how to capture Roman forts . This caused that persians conquer edessa wich makes a roman emperor abdicate being An emperor .i can swear that if khosrau II wasn't crazy Sassanids were victorious against heracilus .
but any way Romans were defeated by Persian cavalry in plan so they made forts to Control the Sassanid cavalry .
Sassanids kill 3 roman emperors in war and many other emperors used to gave tax to Sassanids .

[wulfgar610]

The Sassanids unlike the barbarian threats was an organized state with permanent institiutions. In that regard the Sassinids were the only threat to Rome.

[Blatta Optima Maxima]

If you ask me I would tell you that they were the most powerful enemie of rome and there's nothing to be said in this case as the Romans have confess this . But I can even tell you that they were even more powerful that Romans in army (Sassanids not parthians )
let me explain you :
the Romans march threw Iran by the time of Orod I (who was a weak Parthian ruler ) for the first time and it caused a terrible defeat . And the main reason of their defeats was the Parthian cavalry . After that the Romans controled parthians by building forts and sattlement (and accualy the weak Parthian rulers help tham )
but after a while a more powerful dynasty appears wich was more powerful than parthians in every thing . The Sassanids defeat romans by the time of shapur I . After that the Sassanid lords had war with each other and the Romans defeat Sassanid and they even captured messopotamia .
After that the history was repeated ! Julian the apostate march threw Iran and he and his big army were burned by Sassanid cavalry .
The Romano Persian wars were with out success for both sides because :
1. Roman forts and settlement in the ranks
2. Both sides were in fight with other people
but the power of Sassanid army improves so much by the time khosrau I .this was because that some roman universes came to Iran and start working in Gondi shapur university . They taught them how to capture Roman forts . This caused that persians conquer edessa wich makes a roman emperor abdicate being An emperor .i can swear that if khosrau II wasn't crazy Sassanids were victorious against heracilus .
but any way Romans were defeated by Persian cavalry in plan so they made forts to Control the Sassanid cavalry .
Sassanids kill 3 roman emperors in war and many other emperors used to gave tax to Sassanids .

Sorry for being rude, but you shouldn't have bothered to write this, as I doubt anyone still reads your posts.

Edit: I read it, and, as suspected, it makes no sense.

[legio_XX]

I read it and Got the just of what he was trying to say.

Correct me if im wrong but After reorganizing and fixing the Army in 622 Heraclius defeated all of the Sassanid armys and best general in his way, Sacked The capital (Ctesiphon), took so much gold the army couldnt carry it all, Chosroes II people revolted and threw him into a tower. Then the new King SHahr-Baraz Surrendered all conquered land, Releasing all prisoners and returned the true cross, then as A final act of sumbission The Roman Empoeror was made Guardian of his son.
(its okay because then the islam tribes beat both empiers After 632. They had great timing didnt they?)

I still say the Sassanid were the biggest and most Civilized Power Rome had bar none. Empoerors feard and lost many times to them I think no border in Rome saw Legionaries disappear as in the East.

OH THE SHAME!

[Gäiten]

Correct me if im wrong but After reorganizing and fixing the Army in 622 Heraclius defeated all of the Sassanid armys and best general in his way, Sacked The capital (Ctesiphon), took so much gold the army couldnt carry it all, Chosroes II people revolted and threw him into a tower. Then the new King SHahr-Baraz Surrendered all conquered land, Releasing all prisoners and returned the true cross, then as A final act of sumbission The Roman Empoeror was made Guardian of his son.

Heraclius never sacked Ctesiphon, he sacked some important cities as Dastagerd, an important Royal residence.

Khosrau II was in a very diffecult situation from the early 620ies, he had to deal with my rebellions of this subjects and was to fight some very serois civil wars against the Great Noble Clans (as the Mihrans).
That weakened his armies and so his resolve. After the defeat of Niniveh and his increasingly mad dealing with his military he lost any súpport of them and Heraclius could pillage as he liked it.

Successor of Khosru II was his son Kavadh II, Heraclius made a son of him and he was the Sassanian ruler who returned the True Cross.

[legio_XX]

Heraclius never sacked Ctesiphon, he sacked some important cities as Dastagerd, an important Royal residence.

Khosrau II was in a very diffecult situation from the early 620ies, he had to deal with my rebellions of this subjects and was to fight some very serois civil wars against the Great Noble Clans (as the Mihrans).
That weakened his armies and so his resolve. After the defeat of Niniveh and his increasingly mad dealing with his military he lost any súpport of them and Heraclius could pillage as he liked it.

Successor of Khosru II was his son Kavadh II, Heraclius made a son of him and he was the Sassanian ruler who returned the True Cross.

Thank you gaiten. I was not aware of that. I think the book lost to the west might be off, or I read it wrong as I would

[SeniorBatavianHorse]

I read his post with interest and understand what he is writing. I disagree with most of the content but respect his opinion. In some ways, his key argument re the forts/cavalry is a fascinating topic and well worth debating here.

For example, Farrokh argues cogently that Shapur II, I believe, adopted Roman frontier strategies against the Saraceni and if so shows the Sassanids attempting the learn from and develop Roman techniques.

As for the main issue regarding Roman and Sassanian/Parthian, I think it is Peter Heather who makes a very strong case that the main strategical policy of the Roman Empire was to contain and/or cripple the Persian state. It being the only one who a) was powerful enough to contend with Rome and b) had imperial designs in the west (ie: to reconquer the ancient territories of Achaemenid Persia). The fact that Sassanid Persia failed in this design and the eastern territories of the Roman Empire remained intact as the western ones fell, speaks, to his mind, in the success of that policy.

However, both empires also at different times relied on eachother as twins standing alone in sea of barbarism so overall it is a complex geo-political issue.

[wulfgar610]

I read his post with interest and understand what he is writing. I disagree with most of the content but respect his opinion. In some ways, his key argument re the forts/cavalry is a fascinating topic and well worth debating here.

For example, Farrokh argues cogently that Shapur II, I believe, adopted Roman frontier strategies against the Saraceni and if so shows the Sassanids attempting the learn from and develop Roman techniques.

I've always been rather intrigued by the learning academies or "think tanks" being developed in Persia at the time. While the Byzantine Romans were closing down theirs for fear of heresy and paganism, the Sassanians were welcoming the exiled Roman scholars with open arms and rejecting the narrow mindedness of the Zoroastrian past..

Some claim the Sassanians were in the verge of an enlightenment revolution that unfortunately got cut short.

[parasa.b]

hey i think every body have read farrokhs little book
but any way I mean that romans were defeated by the sassanid cavalry in plans so they made forts in their ranks with sassanids .
and sorry because my stupid writing . I was very tired when I wrote it .

[Blatta Optima Maxima]

Yes, they even had a movement of "communists" for a short time, under Kavad I. Just that socialism would never work out in a feudalist "empire".

[parasa.b]

yes they had
mazdak manged a communist movement .he believes that womans and money and every things must be equal for any body .and even kavad I supported them to make the lords weaker . but after a while his son khosrau I killed mazdak and his followers .

[Blatta Optima Maxima]

You don't realise that the "empire" would have collapsed if the movement wasn't prosecuted - it was a feudal alliance of aristocratic clans, not a centralized state.

[parasa.b]

yes your right . why are you saying you dont realise ?

[Blatta Optima Maxima]

Because you portray them positively - wrong, if you're a sassanid fanboy.

[parasa.b]

I couldnt understand want are you saying . but I just told you the fact !

[SeniorBatavianHorse]

Let's keep this thread objective and not derogatory. We are here to debate and not belittle.

[Valentinian Victor]

We have gone over this ground a number of times before. As most of you know I do not believe the Sasanids were the greatest threat, they never managed to sack a Roman capital city after 260AD, the border between the Sasanids and Romans remained largely intact until the Arab conquests put pressure on both Empires, and Roman field armies were more than able to deal with Sasanid field armies, again as discussed elsewhere.

I think because the Roman's perceived the Sasanids were more of a threat than they were they took their eye off the ball of the real threat, that of the Goth's, hence the calamity of what happened from 376AD onward in the West.

[Blatta Optima Maxima]

We have gone over this ground a number of times before. As most of you know I do not believe the Sasanids were the greatest threat, they never managed to sack a Roman capital city after 260AD, the border between the Sasanids and Romans remained largely intact until the Arab conquests put pressure on both Empires, and Roman field armies were more than able to deal with Sasanid field armies, again as discussed elsewhere.

I think because the Roman's perceived the Sasanids were more of a threat than they were they took their eye off the ball of the real threat, that of the Goth's, hence the calamity of what happened from 376AD onward in the West.

This. One could argue that they were located too far from any roman capital cities, but they never made it too far into the empire - certainly less than the goths.