|Iranic General|

WE

How mutually intelligible were the Iranic languages spoken by nomads like the Scythians to those of the long-settled peoples like the Persians?

We don't know. Probably not very much. We even know less about the Median language then we do about Scythian.

Fuck off.

Best crown?

Bump

Also the Sassanids were apparently extreme effective builders of castles, fortifications, and military bases.

Zoroastrian (not memeing, i'm Parsi) here. I can answer any questions about the religion if you have them. I'm not an ervad or anything, but I do consider myself practicing.

Can you marry your sister?

Peroz I and Bahram IV

Can you convert into it or is it a must that you have to be born in it.

Half-Persian here, why are you guys so mixed and Indian looking?

Shapur I's and Kavad's second crown.

Are Azeris in Iran decended from the medes? Are they just "Turkified"?

Do you think the introduction of Islam benefitted the Persians? What were the cons of it compared to Zoroastrianism?

No. The independent Azerbaijani Azeris are the ones who were brainwashed by Russian and later Soviet propaganda into thinking they were always "originally" Turkic. The Azeris in Iran are still Iranian, ethnically and culturally.

Even though they speak a different language? (im assuming)

Azeri language was influenced and turkified, no one in Iran denies this. But no Iranian Azeri accepts any claim that they are a Turkic people at all.

I'm a Persian Jew but I don't know what kind and don't know my family history except that they came to the US during the Islamic Revolution. Am I considered Sephardi or Mizrahi?

>I'm a Persian Jew
You mean you are a Jew of Iranian descent who was Persianized?

The best soldiers in pre-Islamic Persia were the Dailamites. They were pound-for-pound the finest infantry ever fielded by the Shahs and even the Romans rated them highly.

Fun fact: The Muslim Arabs got BTFO when they tried to enter the Dailamite homelands in northern Persia. It was full of mountains and very European-esque terrain with a proud warrior people that refused to submit until it was under their own terms.

First part sounds about right but I don't know what you mean by Persianized. I was wondering what middle eastern Jews are considered since all I know is that we're not Ashkenazi.

It could've been the Dailamites or Sogdians during pre-Islamic times. You have to remember by the time of the Arsacid dynasty and into the Sassanid dynasty's own era, Persian knightly class known as the Aztan, were primarily cataphract horsemen/cavalrymen or foot archers.

Also the area you are referring to is in Tabristan, which is located around what makes up today's Gilan province, which was heavily mountainous, in Northern Iran. Much of the more hillish and rockier eastern Iran also held out in pocket areas. Hell one of the dynasties that didn't end until the 15th century was directly related to one of the seven Royal Parthian Houses from the Arsacid/Parthian period.

You are also correct that Gilan and Tabristan was never conquered by the Arab Caliphates.

Technically but its not commonly done, in the past its mostly a noble thing.

You can't convert effectively. Reason is that we don't marry outside the community, and the temples are only for our community (language, culture, etc. are impossible for outsider to learn and letting them in would spell an end to our culture even faster)

>mixed
There's two types of us:
Parsi: guys from kerman, etc who came first - they did inter-marry for a few generations but our looks vary a lot. i'd say like 10% are really indian looking, but like 50% have some south asian genes (gene test results are done, look them up).
Irani: that's what i am. we came in qajar dynasty, so much later. we also had enforced endogamy already, so we didn't intermarry when we got to india either. we're from eastern parts (afghanistan, bactria), so we speak dari more, and the liturgy uses bactrian words too.

> indian looking
parsees have been in India so long, that they have been adopting indian fasthion too. we have traditional dress for men, but women wear a parsi version of indian sari. that, combined with the few indian-looking guys, probably gives you the impression they are 'indian looking'.

hope i answered your question. where is your persian side from?

>we don't marry outside the community
I should clarify: if a non-parsi marries a parsi, the non-parsi spouse or the children are not allowed in the temples. we'll allow out-marriage, but basically those who do can't be a functional part of the community.

Persian cavalry (especially the Asvaran) always got the press since it was glamorous, but the Dailamites were the only ones praised by Greco-Roman historians. They could fight with javelin, sword, sling, bow, dagger, and battle-axe on equal terms against Greek and Roman infantrymen.

and to the half-persian: source on genetic tests:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parsi#As_an_ethnic_community

That's actually only correct for parsis. not converting was enforced by the Indian governments to keep you guys segregated. The original zoroastrians in ancient times let people convert. But not in a war like way like Islam or Christianity. It was more similar to judaism where you had to study on your own and prove you really wanted to be apart of the community. It's like this in Iran too. Except the Islamic government counters it by giving death sentences to people leaving Islam. But people convert on the down low anyway. So they are allowed to convert other religions but since the majority of people are Muslims they can't get much converts in the open. During the shah tho there was a huge movement to preserve the culture and let it grow. Mostly due to nationalism.

>That's actually only correct for parsis.
m8 i'm pretty sure you don't need to tell me my history. obviously I was talking about parsees.

we do take converts once in a while if a priest allows a marriage to a non-parsi, but i've only heard this happen once in reality.

in Iran, all the liturgy and such is destroyed now, sadly. none know avestan besides a select few. sadly, if the indian community dies then pretty much no knowledge of the old scholarship will remain.

Yes but my main point is that the original zoroastrians did take converts. And a lot more then modern ones due to them not being a minority and not being oppressed politically. But they didn't send a missionary or declare jihad like Islam/Christianity. They acted like jews where you had to prove yourself and take the necessary steps by your own free will. It took dedication to convert.

i didn't disagree with your 'point'. nothing in our scriptures says we don't take converts, and i made it pretty clear that i was talking about parsees, not zoroastrians in my statement. maybe my english is shit or you can't read well, but i'll say it again: nothing has changed about our stance to conversion. its just that its basically functionally impossible to convert, due to ethnic constraints we (parsees) put on people entering our temples. because our religion and community have basically become the same thing now.

>didn't send a missionary
lmao, that's definitely not the case

yeah next time try to not lecture people on their own history.

Dude you are taking this out of context I'm not arguing with you I was adding an interesting fact that 2000 years ago customs were different. I was staying it for people who aren't familiar with our culture and history. No shit the parses do things different. I never diagreed. I just said that the reason they do things different is more socio-political due to their migration not because of the original teachings of the prophet.

Seriously what is wrong with the iranics. We always get mad and jump to conclusions whenever anyone brings our history into question. Not everything is a debate.

And yes except for a period in the sassind dynasty they were not violent converters. That is well known.

bebakhsheed dadash, hard to tell feeling over text ;_;
also didn't know you were the half-persian, thought some random westerner wanted to lecture me on what he knew from wikipedia lol

>Seriously what is wrong with the iranics
hot blooded; harfam raa fahmedid magarna

btw we did send missionaries. to armenia, arabia, many places. not by force though as you mention ; that is true.
> tfw if we played better politics and without idiots like Varzgen, we'd have zoroastrian georgia

Probably because the Persian cataphracts were able to skewer multiple heavily armored Roman infantrymen like literal kebabs is why their infantry was ignored.

There's also a lot of passages in the Avesta that actively encourage mobads and followers to convert others. Amazingly, in Iran, despite state sppression, the fastest growing religion is actually Christianity, not Zoroastrianism.

Different methods of war. Cavalry and archers were the backbone of Persian forces, with men carrying shield and spear defending the bowmen.

Decisive infantry clashes just didn't happen, and nobody they faced was going to field a large body of infantry heavy enough to crack such a force.

Their infantry didn't wear fucking helmets. The single most vital piece of armor.

On top of that
>professional
The VAST majority of Persians in any battle were levies.

>equal to greeks
No when you have a shield made of damned wicker to face against wood and bronze, no head protection, and no greaves.

>Unlike the Greeks, whose hoplite warfare developed in Greece which is a land unlike Iran, is very rocky, craggy, mountainous, and has a large number of choke points and passes where a small force of heavily armored men fare far better then larger ones.

Greek war was heavily ritualized. They almost always elected to find flat areas suitable to phalanx usage to fight on. Hoplites were and are poorly suited to mountain warfare and would be devastated by light troops in passes. Heavy troops cannot quickly ascend roudg slopes- Meaning skirmishers can easily get ahead of them, ascend, and shoot at them with near impunity.

>Their infantry didn't wear fucking helmets.
They wore caps and hats, yes but no helmets.

>The VAST majority of Persians in any battle were levies.
No, they weren't. The vast majority of the Persian army were Persians but you are confusing "anyone who serves in the Persian army as being Persian", which isn't true. Also the main support and large numbers of troops were from auxiliaries were levies, forces partitioned from satraps' own personal armies and garrisons that would be a mix of mercenaries, professional soldiers, and levies taken as tribute. The Immortals were the professional standing army, about 10,000 strong.

The additional Persian or otherwise Iranic people formed the backbone of Achaemenid armies and were usually bondsmen who were warriors for life, much like certain Greek counterparts in Sparta.

>No
He was talking about skill. Also for all that heavy armor, the Greeks always were afraid of Persian arrows and marksmanship. Also:

>wicker shields
They used large rectangular shields, usually made of bronze. The claim from Herodotus confuses the standing army with what normal levied troops used (i.e. non Iranians like Egyptian volunteers who were light infantry) who maintained small wooden or wicker shields.

>Greek war was highly ritualized
Hoplites are at their best when used in a stationary or slow approach. Their designed to be deployed in eight man deep formations, so no mobility has never been a factor in Greek warfare up to that point in time.

Mobility wasn't a factor because they actively avoided fighting in areas where a phalanx couldn't form, and fought in a set, ritualized manner. HAd they been using the mountian passes as battlefield, the light troops they had would have dominated the fighting with ease.

You can literally pinpoint the moment this changes down to a specific year, and follow the evolution from that point.

>Their designed to be deployed in eight man deep formations

You could expect to see anything from 4-50 deep.

>The claim from Herodotus confuses the standing army with what normal levied troops used
You mean the VAST MAJORITY of soldiers fielded by the Persian Empire at any given time?

Their best troops are lighter than the average greek by a considerable margin, in terms of both arms and armor. Trying to argue otherwise is ridiculous.

Also,no- he clearly refers to the immortals.
>but the immortals had
The logic you're using would allow me to argue that the tiny handful of Greeks who still wore am guards and had arrow curtains represent the average. They didn't.

The troops of the Persian empire-which is clearly what that poster was refering to-were very light by greek standards. It's that simple.

>Mobility wasn't a
They did not utilize phalanx formations all the time in their combat. Mobility wasn't a factor because hoplite forces were not expected to have rapid charges or encirclement in the first place.
>You could expect to see anything from 4-50 deep.
No. The typical pattern was 8 men deep in battle formations. Any more then that assembled and it takes too long to mobilize, hence why the Romans tended to kick the Greeks and Macedonians asses because manipules were designed to contrast this by being 3 men deep with more space, typically about 3-5 feet vs the 1-2 feet a hoplite is deployed in a normal phalanx.
>You mean the VAST MAJORITY of soldiers filed by the Persian Empire at any given time?
I think my context was pretty clear on what I was saying there.
>Their best troops are lighter than the average greek
Heavy scale and chainmail armor that covered their chests, shoulders, waist, and lower legs , typical armed with heavy short stabbing swords and the most common actual sidearms of the Companions and Immortals were trench and battle axes. They weren't inferior in arms.

And lighter, yes, "much lighter", no. And certainly not better armored then Persian horsemen.
>He clearly refers to the immortals
You don't get it. Herodotus makes numerous errors with Persian formations, troop identities, ranks, and so on. The regular forces are the Immortals, the elites are the Companions and the Immortals were not levied troops nor acted as spearmen. They were deployed as heavy infantry (regardless of being chainmail vs plate) as shock troopers and archers, not spearmen, that was the Arabian/Indian/Egyptian levies job.
>The troops of the Persian empire-which clearly is what that poster was refering to
Not the one you are responding to earlier, two posts ago.
>were very light by greek standards.
No, the levies were. Not the professional or regular ethnic troops.
>It's that simple.
No.

Jesus. No.
>They did not utilize phalanx formations all the time in their combat
Find a single fucking example of classical Greeks choosing not to use it after the archaic period and before the Peleponesian war.
You can't.

>Mobility wasn't a factor because hoplite forces were not expected to have rapid charges
The Spartans were literally the only Greeks to steadily march to contact and not run. The Greeks found this intimidating.
>or encirclement in the first place.
Men form two victorious wings killing each other during an encirlcment is LITERALLY the reason behind Greeks starting to use national designs on shields.

Their whole tactic was to break a wing and roll up the opposing flank as fast as possible.

>No. The typical pattern was 8 men deep in battle formations
*812.
Except marathon sees the center 4 deep, and lecutra sees thebans fucking 50 deep vs Spartans being 8-12.

Both of these non-standard arrays were done by amateurs.

>and Macedonians
16x16 blocks are the standard unit of organization in the Macedonian phalanx. And yes, it was standarized and well regulated.

>manipules were designed to contrast this by being 3 men deep with more space
Maniples were not desinged with greeks in mind, but gauls and samnites, who were romes great foes of the day.

They were 6-8 ranks deep on average, not fucking 3.

With THREE such 6-8 rank deep lines. Roman armies formed deep, not wide.

>Heavy scale and chainmail armor that covered their chests, shoulders, waist, and lower legs , typical armed with heavy short stabbing swords
Feel free to post a source for this, because it contradicts literally everything i've ever read.
And chain? No. Chain doesn't enter the area until after the celts forcibly migrated into the area, long after the Hellenic conquests have occurred and persia is a dead empire, broken apart and ruled by Hellenes.

>The regular forces are the Immortals
again, you're contradicting everything i've seen on the subject.

ANd in addition to all this-The immortals and companions are the same damn force, and even iranian reenacotrs depict the classic immortals as herodotus describes.

It seems fairly obvious that you're confusing the arms and use of the later, sassanid era immortals for the classical force. They have next to nothing in common.

How important was boipussy in ancient Persia?

>Jesus. No.
You need to re-read what I said earlier.
>Muh Spartans only did this.
Not really. The full armor of a Hoplite weighs about what, 60-70 lbs in full kit, mobility regardless is not a practical issue with that sort of gear.
>Their whole tactic was to break a wing and roll up the opposing flank as fast as possible.
This was everyone's tactic.
>Except Marathon
Except Marathon has the center go 4 deep which was considered non-standard, the wings on both sides were still deployed 8 deep to pull off the double envelopment. Stop trying to obfuscate facts.
>amateurs
Yeah those Corinthians and Thebans who typically kicked pederasty loving Spartan ass sure were "amateurs".
>Macedonians
You mean phalangites typically.
>Maniples were not designed with greeks in mind
No but they were awesome at countering phalanx's and crushing them due to their mobility and wider spaced formations in the first place.
>6 to 8 ranks deep
No, they weren't. They were deployed 3 to 4 deep typically, 40 men to a line. They were always deployed deep in the first place, because they used checkerboard formations that allowed sub-manipules to wheel around. This is why the maniple is superior to the phalanx. The Romans had space and leverage, the Greeks did not once the entire main army formation was broke.
>Scale
Is another word for chainmail, friend. Also chainmail in the Near East has nothing to do with the Celts at all..
>Hellenic conquests
Of about 40 or 50 years, which rapidly degenerated after the Diodachi. Hellenistics really brought nothing and had no permanence in Iranian lands.
>again youre contradicting
No I'm not. The Companions and Immortals are two very different organizations. The Companions are the elite infantry, who are the bodyguards and royal guards. The Immortals are the regular professional soldiers a tier below them. The Immortals were not the regular army's name but the Companions never amassed more then 1000 men, so no.

No, I'm not. The Companions specifically numbered 1000 men and were stationed at all times in the capital cities or accompanying the king's person directly. The Immortals and the Zheydan Immortals are not being confused.

Herodotus informant mistook the Persian word for "Companion" with "Immortal" because in Old Persian they are very similar sounding to Greek ears. Its fairly obviously I know a lot more about Persian warfare then you do.

If you are using the wikipedia article, its pretty much outdated and flawed, even with the basis of Herodotus as its main source, dudester. There were two different main Persian forces that were held at all times in the Achaemenid dynasty's reign.

A) Companions: who Herodotus mistakes as the "Immortals" who only numbered about 1,000 men of noble birth who acted as the personal guards, enforcers, and elite units for the King directly
B) Whatever the "real name" for the Immortals was who numbered over 10,000 men and were formed by Persian and Median soldiery of freeman caste who were employed as the regular soldiers

Mr. Farrokh covers this pretty extensively in his books and articles.

Not very. In Northern Afgahnistan though they're ending Alexander's legacy of boy loving.

>Not really. The full armor of a Hoplite weighs about what, 60-70 lbs in full kit, mobility regardless is not a practical issue with that sort of gear.
Having worn that much gear-you can fucking run in it.

On top of that, EVERY SINGLE primary source has hoplite being prone to break into a shambling run before contact.

>This was everyone's tactic.
Except it wasn't. Romans preferred to steamroll the center and then defeat both wings in detail. Celts mounted a massed charge and tried to simply sweep a foe off the field.

Iberian tactics were exceptionally varied.

>Yeah those Corinthians and Thebans who typically kicked pederasty loving Spartan ass sure were "amateurs".
They were literally amateurs, you fucking moron, with the exception of a band of men comprising 5% of the fighting force.

>No but they were awesome at countering phalanx's and crushing them due to their mobility and wider spaced formations in the first place.
....which is why they initiated battles by attacking them head on.

>No, they weren't. They were deployed 3 to 4 deep typically, 40 men to a line
And yet, the primary sources-polybius especially, a fucking contemporary witness to roman battles and a soldier himself- directly contradict you.

>because they used checkerboard formations that allowed sub-manipules to wheel around.

The quincux closes the gaps and forms solid lines once in contact.

>Is another word for chainmail, friend
No, it fucking isn't. It's a totally different armor, made with scales, not cvhain links,m hence the name. It also behaves very differently.

>Also chainmail in the Near East has nothing to do with the Celts at all..
Please then, tell me how the persians are the ONE people to invent it themselves and not gain the use of said armor through cultural diffusion started by migrating celts, who fucking invented it.
Bear in mind, there's no written source for it EXISTING in this time period-anywhere.

You have yet to post a source. And you won't.

>maniple

Please, post an actual citation for chain-armored, sword and shield wearing immortals. And then explain how the Persians have chain before it is known to have existed in their part of the world at all, and how no source comments on it, and no art depicts it.

And then explain why the few depictions we have of immortals shows them with spear, bow, and robes, just as herodotus describes.

The article you stole that from has no source at all for your statement, or for the image.

>Having worn that much gear
Sure you have.
>shambling run
Sure, that's not the same thing as fucking constantly moving set piece large formations at an advanced pace or sprint or anything which is what I was getting at, you dong.
>Except it wasn't.
Except it typically was. Gauls liked to use ambushes that had large formations of men hit at the wings, same as the Persians, Medes, Assyrians, Babylonians, Iberian, Carthigians, and so on.
>They were literally amateurs.
Who typically kicked Spartan asses. Good for them, right? Right.
>Polybius
That's the source I'm using, same with Plutarch, Tacticus, and Caesar. They deployed their formations in maniples typically 3 to 4 men deep, but spaced wide enough to give each man enough room to fight with about 2 feet of clearance behind or around him. Which makes it easier for Roman soldiers to cycle in and out for a fresh rank to replace them the combat lines.

So don't try that bullshit with me.
>The blah blah blah
Didn't work for the Macedonians, didn't work for the Greeks, didn't work for the Seleucids, or the Antigoids. The Phalanx is absolutely shit at dealing with maniples or cohort formations.
>No it fucking isn't.
Your right, I made a mistake with scale and mail armor, there I'll concede on that.

>Chain armored
You mean scale-armored, sword wielding Persians? We have plenty of frescoes and friezes of that at Persepolis, you can simply google them, my man.
>robes
My friend, its a commonly well known fact with anyone who possess a semi-functioning brain that the Persians worse their clothes, tunics and jackets both, over their armor. Also, the friezes at Perspeolis depicts the Immortals in ceremonial uniform, not in battle readiness, so please stop being so autistic.

Now can you tell me when the Persians had ANY interactions with the Celts?

>stole that from
That was copy-pasted straight from wikipedia based off articles posted in Osprey books that use various sources like Tacticus for information, don't be autistic.

>worse
*wore

>Gauls
>ambushes
These same fucking people are also known for issuing challenges to single combat, and noted for their exceptionally fierce charge.

Yes, they launched ambushes. When fighting in the open, they did not focus on crushing wings, but on sweeping their foes off the field entirely.

The empire didn't. The people living in western reaches the former empire got PLENTY of interaction from the Galatians, who would have introduced chain armor to the region.

You're posting things the sources don't actually describe, and confusing later writers, dealing with professional legions-who are able to b more detailed-for the earlier ones.

For early republican legions-the only ones relevant to "why the Romans fought the way they did instead of as hoplites- i've seen arguments ranging from 6-8 deep-the most common-to yours, to a VERY fucking compelling argument form J.E Lendon that the maniple doesn't even have a formation.

Specifically, he argues that roman arms are uniquely suited to individualized combat-hence the lack of spears-that enlistment oaths mention that a man can leave the company to attack and enemy, and that no actual formation is ever described for an actual maniple.

Essentially he argues that the first two lines are actually clumps of men organized into a coherent, but rough line with no set places or shape.

Regardless, even if you're right-two 3-4 deep lines, plus the 6x10 triarii-this is explicitly described-means they're overall 16-18 ranks deep in total.

Which is still deeper than a hoplite phalanx.

Go ahead and post sources of direct relations between Persians and Celts, I'm waiting for this, especially since Persian presence in Europe even with solely basis of trade routes would've been absolutely tenous at best and sporadically intermittent. Especially since the earliest attested proof we have is the Sassanids in the 3rd century in Asia.

>Youre posting things from sources don't actually describe and confusing later writers
Polybius talked about pre-Marian Roman armies, so no I'm not. He compares and contrasts the strengths and weaknesses Roman vs Greek style of warfare had, especially with the Phalanx vs the Maniple. And I'm using Osprey's "The Roman Army" directly for my main source.

But anyways this is completely off topic for a thread about Iranians. If you want to make one about Roman armor and battle tactics for Greeks, go ahead and do so.

Why are Indo-Iranian religions so much more interesting then boring Abrahamic ones?

The most uniformed Iranian-centric explanation I've ever read. Wow

Bet this is the same retard from last night claiming that Greece should have submitted to Persia so it could be more culturally prosperous.

It's entirely true though.

Ofc it's going to Iranian centric, Indo-Yuropeeons came out of central fucking Asia.

I'd bet all my limbs he's here.

Pretty sure the Persian kings were enjoying boipussy long before Alexander m8

Nope. That's a Greek/Hellenistic transmission spread via Alexander's conquest of Achaemenid Persia.

Please fuck off out of this thread with your shitposts.

...

Here's a (You)

Found him.

Stop shitposting.

Holy shit you are dumb.

Top laff m8

Bagoas was Darius III lover before Alexander took possession of him. You are full of shit

>Bagoas was Darius III's lover
A) What does that have to do with Bacha Bazi?
B) Proof

cool shop my dude

>shop
Sorry to say but more then one user here is responding to your dumb posts. Like I asked you earlier, can you kindly just fuck off?

Screenshots have never convinced anyone of a lack of samefag. Just a fyi.

Kek, they don't get bracer nor fortified walls.
#REKT

That's a pity that someone is that delusional then.

They had fortified walls, that's only a part of the Dagestan fortification. You do realize the Byzantines were very heavily dependent on the Persians maintaining fortresses and garrisons in the Caucasus and Eurasia for a reason right? That's why they paid the Sassanids to hold and build those defenses.

Byzantines are OP anyway, their buildings get extra HP and they get cheap counter units, which fucking REKS any persian army. Halberdiers and camels deal an insane amount of bonus damage against Persian elephants and cavalry, and the Persians don't even get fucking two-handed swordsmen to counter those.

>their buildings
So just Constantinople? Like I said earlier, Persian engineers and siege masters were the main reason why the Byzantines were constantly paying huge fees and settlements to the Sassanids because the Persians were generally much better at holding off nomadic tribes then the Byzantines were.

Like how Attila ravaged much of the Byzantine Empire but the only thing he couldn't do was breach Constantiople's defenses itself. They had to pay him off. When Attila tried to invade through the Caucasus was a large force under one of his cousins, the entire Hunnic army was annihilated in two battles, one in Armenia and a second outside of Ctesiphon.

*with a large force

Byzantines and Persians both suck at siege, the only thing the Persians have that the Byzantines don't is the Heavy Scorpion, which is a more or less useless upgrade anyway.
Huns and Mongols are both cavalry and cavalry archer civilizations, and the Byzantines can fucking crush them with their trash units and camels. Granted, the Hunnic and Mongol siege units are pretty good and sort of negate the building HP bonus. But neither of them get Bombard Cannons, so there's that. War Elephants may be the strongest unit in the game, but they're also the most expensive and easy to counter with spearmen and fast archers.
TL;DR, Persians are only real good for one strategy and Byzantines are great at everything, can counter everything, and will win against everything, including Persians and nomadic tribes.

>I was wondering what middle eastern Jews are considered
TAA-DAA!
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mizrahi_Jews

>Byzantines and Persians both suck at siege
No they didn't. One of the main reasons why the siege of Constantinople failed was because the Persian siege engineers were killed trying to circle around the straits to get to their Slavic and Avar allies who lacked both the skill and technical experience to create siege weapons to breach the gates and walls of the city.

Also heavy scorpions only? That is wrong. They used mobile siege towers, battering rams, catapults, and trebuchets which were a match for their Byzantine counterpats as well.

>Persians are only real good for one strategy
Wrong. A certain Byzantine military officer and historian is very explicit that the Persians were the most dangerous foes of the Romans/Byzantines because "like us, they excelled in generalship and strategy, rather then brute force."

>and will win against everything
They frequently lost as much as they won, dude. The final three wars before the 602-629 AD last Byzo-Persian War had the Persians constantly taking tributes from their Byzantine counterparts.

>game
What the fuck are you babbling about

If the Persians sucked as much as you were claiming then the Byzantines wouldn't have been so reliant so many times during peace between Byzantine Empire and Sassanid Empire for the Persians to maintain fortifications and defensive networks in the Caucasus and Central Asia because like pointed out, the Persians were good at redirecting barbarians away from them with their military power.

Was Ya'qub Saffarid the Persian equivalent of Chuck Norris?

What does that make Mardavji then?

I don't know who that is but I probably should have used King Arthur instead of Chuck Norris

>Also heavy scorpions only? That is wrong.
That's the only thing where the Persians can one-up the Byzantines. They have indetical tech trees in the siege workshop and university, but Persians get the Heavy Scorpion and the Byzantines don't.
>What the fuck are you babbling about
In this post I made a joke relating to the vidya game Age of Empires II and its portrayal of the Persian civilization. I though that was really, really obvious now, but the banter was just too enjoyable. I could not stop. Thanks for that.

Nigger I haven't played Ages of Empires II since I was 11 years old and that was more then a decade ago.

Founder of the Ziyarid dynasty, who were Persian royalty by being one of the cadet branches of House Suren and House Sasan, the founder was anti-Muslim and was kicking the shit out of his Iranian Muslim and Arab rivals in Iran until he got assassinated.

ah ok

makin me real agitated my only exposure to medieval persia is through crusader cucks 2 and that game doesn't even have a means to play in that specific decade range

>Nigger I haven't played Ages of Empires II since I was 11 years old and that was more then a decade ago.
You should give it another try, it's a great game. Star Wars Galactic Battlegrounds too.

Could someone translate this into Farsi? I can't find that translation anywhere.

youtu.be/XwfLzbb3bLw

In the desert
I saw a creature, naked, bestial,
Who, squatting upon the ground,
Held his heart in his hands,
And ate of it.
I said, “Is it good, friend?”
“It is bitter—bitter,” he answered;

“But I like it
“Because it is bitter,
“And because it is my heart.”

Translate it to Persian? Why?

>with whom Darius was intimate and with whom Alexander would later be intimate... "Quintus Curtius Rufus"(BOOK VI. 5.23)

I want to read the Farsi translation along with her. I can't find it anywhere. I looked on the bands website and googled ""In the Desert" in Farsi" to no avail.