Both Caesar and Constantine planned to launch a full scale invasion of Persia before their deaths

Cyrus cylinder was mostly about liberating the jews and freedom of religion. That's nice but hardly a declaration of human rights.

>Persian
>niggers
pick one

you mad bro?
Zindabad Seljuks/Persia

>implying at that time Persia wasn't a better society in just about every way

Why do you have a hard-on for Caesar? He was a brutal murderer responsible for hundreds of thousands of Gauls' deaths.

had they conquered Persia, would it be able to set up the likes of a true Eastern Roman Empire, one in which the Capital was Babylon spreading far into Asia, essentially creating a Roman Asia? Or would it be completely impossible? I understand that Rome would have to overcome Mongols, Turks, Arab war lords, Indian Kingdoms, and many other factors, but could it be possible that these peoples would have homogenized into Roman politics and society like the Germanic's did in Northern and central Europe.

Because he was fucking awesome you pussy.

>how to be homogay in a single post

They should have fought harder then.

Tell that to the Samnites

>Persians were and are the best race on earth.
>islamic country
Uh huh.

Ah, I remember being a 16 year old war nerd with no real-life experience of violence and thinking that war was cool.

You mean the samnites who were initially integrated into roman society?

they got wiped out because they rebelled and betrayed Rome at literally every opportunity, which proves the previous anons point.

Nope, the distance to capital and the strength of local culture will either assimilate certain factors or completely destroy the intrusion.

>initially integrated into roman society?
They were hill peoples who would raid the plauins of campania before the First Samnite War, there is a lack of a proper city in and around Samnium in the ancient maps because they were rustic and austere murderhobos who were herdsmen and raiders.

>The Cylinder's text has traditionally been seen by biblical scholars as corroborative evidence of Cyrus' policy of the repatriation of the Jewish people following their Babylonian captivity[4] (an act that the Book of Ezra attributes to Cyrus[5]), as the text refers to the restoration of cult sanctuaries and repatriation of deported peoples.[6] This interpretation has been disputed, as the text identifies only Mesopotamian sanctuaries, and makes no mention of Jews, Jerusalem, or Judea.[7] The Cylinder has also been called the oldest known charter or symbol of universal human rights, a view rejected by others as anachronistic and a misunderstanding of the Cylinder's generic nature as a typical statement made by a new monarch at the beginning of his reign.
the assyrians and babylonians didn't force their gods on anyone. destroying the Jerusalem temple was taking revenge on a disloyal vassal, not a religion. allowing deported people back to their native lands and giving them clearance to rebuild cult sanctuaries is not about toleration, but a purely political move. the idea of inalienable human rights didn't exist until the enlightenment

If the gauls were too decentralised and primitive to stand up to superior Roman tactics, then the Romans had every right to civilise them. Can't have hundreds of thousands of nomadic tribesman on your doorstep.

yea ditto, they straight up ignored his point

>Thinks the Gauls were nomadic
Read more

>Read more
no u. Cimbrian war.
Caesar used the movement of huge numbers of Gauls near Cisalpine Gaul as a cassus belli against them.
In fact, they'd already tried it, and Marius kicked the shit out of them for it.

>We could have removed the Eternal Iranian

The Cimbrians weren't Gauls.

This. If you hear something and you find yourself thinking "man what a cool thing to do." Don't. Immediately go "I wonder what the political motive for that was" even after the enlightenment, people doing things for the sake of good will was a meme.

The cimbrians were from jutland, you retard.

Even if Caesar managed to conquer Parthia it just wasn't worth it nor would he have been able to defend it. The Roman Empire was already way too large and with god knows how many subjects (different people and cultures). Also, most of the territories that Parthia held were quite poor.

The Romans could beat Parthia and any other nation every day of the week, however one thing is to beat them and another to control the territory and the people that come with it.

>I don't understand how things were in the antiquity and like to apply presentism to every historical subject I touch
neck yourself gaulscum

In the hypothetical scenario that Trajan lives for like 10 years more and is hell bent on crushing the Parthians, I think it would have been possible but only short term.

Mesopotamia was easy to gain but difficult to hold and that is due to the natural barriers it has which are rocky deserts, which are very difficult to traverse. Furthermore at some point the Persians under Roman occupation would have revolted, and Roman complete annexation of Persia is a pipe dream and never considered not only due to the size, lack of roads and resources and harsh environment but also due to its distance.

A much more realistic scenario for Roman control of the silk and spice trade coming from the east would be the control of the Arabian peninsula coastline and made more sense in a grand strategy way of sense. Similarly, Alexander the great considered Arabia the true economic frontier after the Indian campaign debacle, not India which was impossible to conquer. The point then is not to control the orient, but to control the access and flow of trade from and to the orient.

The Assyrians would simply mass murder everyone though. They even gloated of these practices in their own inscriptions and writings, so they were not that good. Half the reason why their empire was ultimately eradicated was due to their cruelty.

The Romans lost for 30+ straight years against Ardashir and Shapur the Great as soon as the Sassanids asserted themselves. They were not invincible.

It wasn't. Trajan's invasion over-extended the Roman Empire. That's why the Romans never undertook or were capable of undertaking any great offensive wars of conquest after the failure of trying to insanely annex Iranian lands. Not too mention that even ignoring the massive plague that got transported to the departing Roman legions after they were recalled immediately by Hadrian, the Romans never got close to the Iranian heartlands on the Iranian plateau.

Also the Romans initial success is largely due to the fact that Ctesiphon, the Arsacid dynasty's capital, was located barely 50-60 miles from the Parthian-Roman borders.

Cimbrians were Germanics, not Celtics. Also even early Roman accounts specifically note the Celtics and people like those living in Gaul were civilized which Caesar himself specifically contrasted with the Germanics being barbaric and warlike.

Romans actually respected Celtic people for their wares, industry, and society.

Already taken care off.

Thank guns, Russia, and China.

you're confused with the plague of galen, which was spread after the parthian war of 161-66.

the roman legions were recalled to slay hebrews

There is literally no way any Roman army even under Marius/Sulla/Caesar/Antony/Agrippa/etc...would've ever been capable of going from Roman lands into Parthian/Persian lands and decisively "conquering it". The simple scale, distance, and opposition would make that an impossible task.

The entire reason the Age of Antiquity ended was due heavily to the wars between the Roman Republic and later Roman Empire with the Arsacid and later Sassanid Iranian Empire being frivolous. The core of Iranian peoples heartlands were in the Iranian plateau as well as large parts of Central Asia bordering and leading into the Steppes as well as geopgrahically being protected by large scale mountain ranges and other hostile territory that was nigh impossible for larger number of Roman army formations of ever navigating into it.

You guys remember why the Romans failed to get into Scotland? With its mountains, bogs, swamps, and the distance from Roman held Britain? Its the same concept here. Trajan tried to emulate Alexander the Great and his legacy while an impressive one was what doomed the Roman Empire's age of conquest to a grinding halt. In fact even looking over it historically, outside of the westernmost provinces of what makes up old Baghdad aka Ctesiphon which was part of traditionally old "Pars", I don't think any Roman or even Byzantine/ERE force ever made it into Iran proper.

Its simply impossible. And for that same reason it was impossible for the Parthians/Persians of destroying the Romans/Byzantines. Look at the wars and successes of guys like Shapur I and II or Khosrau went with taking Armenia, parts of Syria, and recovering portions of the Levant and Mesopotamia back, not eradication of the entire Roman influence.

Nah, there was a huge plague in Greek territory and the Roman Levant immediately following the Roman army's recall from Parthian lands once Trajan fell ill in 116-117.

>You guys remember why the Romans failed to get into Scotland?
But they did get into Scotland. Holding it was a complete waste of time and money, so they didn't.

They faced Rome's 50,000 with 300,000 gauls, and they lost. They deserve to loose.

The kind of people who think a Roman conquest of Persia was possible probably also think that Rommel could have driven east and joined up with the Sixth Army somewhere around the Garden of Eden. Arrows on map fetishists, not real historians.

Aww... how cute. Another Veeky Forums sociopath who's proud of how cynical and jaded he is. And would probably cry like a bitch if he ever saw the kind of real-life violence he likes to glorify.

This is actual bullshit.

Yeah, the Germanians were caveman, but gauls were also watered-down cavemen.

>Romans actually respected Celtic people for their wares, industry, and society.
Dont forget the Sennones who burnt rome to the ground and they had to rebuild it.

That reply was more cynical and jaded than what the other faggot said mate. Why so edgy?

Once again you are judging the past by our modern standards, not really a good approach to history. Old empires were quite pragmatic when it came to conquest. Either you expanded or you were expanded upon. I'd refer you to the famous passage of Thucydides' melian dialogue: "The strong do what they can, the weak suffer what they must". Concepts of eris (strife) and agon (competition) were deeply anchored in greek culture. Similar thoughts could be said among romans virtues like providentia (military resolve) or auctoritas (authority). Even Egyptians had Isfet (chaos, strength through violence).

I think it's just hard to appreciate the context of those times with our modern sensibilities.You could not simply exist in a state of neutrality, if you had powerful neighbours they tended to rule over you - or vice-versa.

Do you think that Julius Caesar-era Gaul was a serious threat to the Roman Republic?

Cause I'm sick of this Veeky Forums sociopathy and/or contrarianism. Mainstream society says conquering and pillaging is bad, so the edgelords and psychos who are common here insist that there's no morality, conquest is great, and so on. It's not only morally ugly, it's also rather dull and predictable... Veeky Forums is constantly getting new threads that are on the 16-year old war nerd level of "Hey guize, who do you think the bestest conkeror of all timez is???" I recognize it because I was a 16-year old war nerd once too. I remember thinking how cool Alexander, Caesar, and Napoleon war... then I got older, learned more about all the aspects of statesmanship and war that go beyond just tactics and weapons, and became disgusted by all the Gr8 Konkerors I had once admired.

Doesn't matter what I think. That's the whole point. We're talking about dead men who lived in a world very different from ours and perceived equally differently.

Persia was a far better place than Rome.

Nah. Self defense makes sense. But conquering a land and people out of ambition and desire for power was wrong then and is wrong now.

It doesn't matter what they thought. Right and wrong don't change.

You're showing poor understanding of roman history. Once they identified a threat, they never really let go. When the gauls from cisalpina sacked rome in 380BC, the romans never forgot. When the macedonians steuck a treaty with Hannibal, the romans never forgot. When the seleucid struck an non-aggression pact with their antigonids, rome never forgot. When carthage attacked seguntum and had the second punic war, the romans never forgot. When the gauls raided transalpina in the early 100'sBC, rome never forgot.

Not trying to excuse it, nor sugarcoat that it probably was beneficial economically to both caesar and the senate, but that's juat how the romans were. They were always proactive when it came to potential threats.

Explaining that the Romans never forgot doesn't make it right.

Think what you like. They're all dead, I doubt they'll be bothered that much.

So you accuse them of the sin of ignorance? You were them once too man, whatever event that made you rise above it has not happend to them. Mainstream be damned, but you know you can empathize with the point that was made, that is why you are against it, because it is a 'been there done that' thing. Dont get wound up about opinions on a filipino hand puppet forum, it is more of a waste of time than you care to think. Just discuss the facts man, ignore the childishness and just be Zen, because lets face it, if you cant cultivate that attitude here then you cannot anywhere else. Balance your humours and discuss without prejudice, you will be fine.

The greatest of statesmen are brutal murderers, and the death of the gauls paved the way for the romanization of France and the expansion of the empire.

Sure, the people of the past worked with what they had. But even back then, not everyone was a blood-thirsty militarist. Some were more aggressive, others milder. And in any case, originally I wasn't criticizing the Romans (although I do fault their morals) - I was criticizing the people in this thread who have a hard-on for Caesar. Maybe the ancient Romans to some extent didn't know any better. But we've got sheltered first-worlders (most likely) in this thread now glorifying the butchery of real people. It's of course to be expected on Veeky Forums, but it's still rather disgusting.

Strange definition of "great" you have.

Fuck off reddit, people are allowed to admire the statemanship and campaigns that eventually gave birth to modern europe.

You're just virtuesignalling about shit that has been out of everyone's control for over 2000years. Fucking kill yourself you tipping faggot

>waaaaaaaaaaaaah life is unfair and cruel and all my role models were actually murderous psychopaths

perhaps you should try /r9k/

Considering how badly they cucked us in the past, we've already lost.

Ah yes, gaius iulius caesar, only admired by nerds throughout history...

>Persians invented human rights

thats wrong though.

t. Master in International Human Rights Law

Read Caesar you retard. He describes each society in depth. Celts as civilized yet weak, Germans as uncivilized barbarians. He attacks gaul so Rome can prevent German nomadd invasions.

They never held it because it was impossible for them. On top of that the geography and terrain were literally the same as being in Inner Germania, too much bogs, narrow passes, cliffs, and swamp lands for large Roman armies to deal with in formations.

Let's remember what happened when they actually tried.

Don't have to. They're dead

>posting a 6 foot tall white guy who looked nothing like caesar
REEEEEEEEEEEEEE
based, fuck the gauls

Gauls had townships, fortified settlements, roads, and streets, organized trade, and metal works and their own industry. Part of the reason why Julius Caesar's expedition and conquest of Gaul was so speedy was because Gaulics/Celtics in Gaul were a developing society.

Hell, the Romans and Parthians/Persians both iirc got their chainmail from trading with them.

I think a better example would be Antony who was actually militarily skilled and still got blown out.

>Mainstream society says conquering and pillaging is bad
that's not even true, americans barely give a shit about all the war crimes their country commits
>I was a 16-year old war nerd once too. I remember thinking how cool Alexander, Caesar, and Napoleon war... then I got older, learned more about all the aspects of statesmanship and war that go beyond just tactics and weapons, and became disgusted by all the Gr8 Konkerors I had once admired.
>i'm a pussy, the post
> I wasn't criticizing the Romans (although I do fault their morals)
there is no "nice guy" side in history, either you're on the side of progress or you're not

and guess what, progress means overthrowing vile reactionary regimes and societies like the barbarian gauls and germans even if you have to kill a few "innocents" and commit a few "war crimes" while doing so
>glorifying the butchery of real people
gauls aren't real people you turbofaggot, they're barbarians

during the napoleonic wars you are either on the side of napoleon or the reactionary tyrants of england and russia, you are on the side of caesar or you are on the side of the depraved oligarchs and the vile barbarians killing other tribes (and moving into roman territory) in gaul

You mean the Samnites who got full citizenship and became known as Italians after the Social War?

Being a whiny bitch doesn't make you right either

>implying
rome did not have the means to project their power over all of persia even if they did crush persia. they would leave, another guy would walk in and pick up the pieces, and hostilities would resume because rome would be busy dealing with another civil war or something.

I think part of the reason some idiots are under the impression Romans were superior to Parthians/Persians is because the Iranians had their capital at Ctesiphon which is VERY close to the Roman/Byzantine border shared with the Parthians/Persians. When I asked my Near Eastern History professor who specialized in antiquity and classical studies, he told me the general reason for this was a projection of power by the Iranians to the West.

That's why despite being ransacked and captured occasionally (mainly under the Arsacid dynasty, like three or four times), they refused to move their capital from the proximity it was to the border just to say "Fuck you" to the Romans.

Who did then, user? Genuinely curious.

That's a meme, the parthians were even weaker than their seleucid predecessors and they bent the knee to rome like antiochius IV the epicuck

Can't be weaker then Seleucids when they beat them utterly.

because liking hitler isn't edgy and contrarian enough anymore

maybe god loves persia

It was already on the wane since 190bc at magnesia. The parthians only emerge and rebel against the seleucids 90 years later.

It was on the wane because of the Parthians rising in the first place in the mid-3rd century.

the parthian are not insiders mate, they're nobles within the seleucid empire rebelling and eventually seizing power as the empire slowly but surely starts to fragment. They might have become the ruling dynasty but they are presiding over a much tinier kingdom than they did before. They were literally not a threat. Hence why by the end of it, they ceded more territory to rome and learnt how to stfu about muh right to mediterranean access.

user, the period of the Parthian independence and the foundation of the Arsacid dynasty lead to a continue downwind spiral for the Selecuid Empire. When Arsaces founded his dynasty, and his subsequent expelling of Greek/Selecuid authority from Parthia, this coincided with further rebellions and provinces breaking away like the formation of the independent Greco-Bactarian state.

The Parthians were time and time again able to recover from any temporary loses to the Selecuids and take more territory, lands, and power from the Selecuids. By the time of Mithridates the Great/the first, the Selecuids completely gave up on even attempting to reconquer them and took a policy of trying to get them to become vassals instead. The Seluecids had the vast majority of their Asian territory when the Arsacids show up, so what your saying is not true.

>MUH ASIAN TERRITORIES
literally a meme parthafags tell themselves at night to explain why they never conquered anatolia or the "western near-east" again. They had to wait til Rome fell and they themselves got replaced by the sassanians before even seeing those regions again?

Persia died with Darius III. Deal with it.

He constantly spams this Gaulish genocide shit in every thread about Romans. I suspect he's an irate patty or scot doing the MUUUHHH HURRRRRRRITTAGGEE DESTROY'D BY ROME thing.

>I have no idea what I'm talking about the post
Neat.

NO UN ARGUMENTE

This is not an argument. This also has no relation to the previous post you were responding to while trying to move the goal posts on why the Seleucids fell to the Parthians/Arsacid dynasty.

Stop being so dumb.

Trajan been there, conquered that. Decided it wasn't worth keeping.

Are you retarded? The Parthian Empire fell almost two and half centuries before the Western Roman Empire ever did. On top of that, majority of wars were instigated by the Romans against the Parthians. Majority of their expansion efforts were aimed at the Caucasus regions and nations like Iberia, Albania, and Armenia.

Trajan's effort fucked the Roman Empire over in the long run and he never even conquered the whole thing.

>over-tax the Roman Empire
>move vital and essential reserve legions and manpower from the western garrisons to the East
>never break into Iranian heartlands
>die of illness failing to take a major Parthian fortress
>successor immediately gives up all "territory" temporarily taken by the Romans
>figurehead put on the Arsacid throne is immediately desposed and forced into exile
>consequences of Trajan's expedition completely cripple Rome from EVER undertaking any sort of offensive war of conquest ever again

Good job Trajan.

It was their own damn fault for killing off all the viable Hellenistic states that served as a buffer to the east. Imagine, 600 AD, Romans have no land border with Persia and therefore no devastating and exhausting Persian war. Arab invasions are soaked up by client kingdoms instead of zerg rushing two broken empires.

>The Romans lost for 30+ straight years against Ardashir and Shapur the Great as soon as the Sassanids asserted themselves. They were not invincible.

We're talking about the Parthian Empire, not the Sassanids. Ardashir got pushed back and defeated while Shapur was fighting a Rome way past it's peak. The Romans defeated them both, but by that time they had too many problems to take advatange of it.

And might I add that the Romans never had plans to conquer Parthia, only to keep them at bay. I already explained why.

Ardashir defeated Severus outside of Ctesiphon. Your claim about Shapur is also utterly and completely nonsensical. Between Ardashir and Shapur, both largely won territorial gains from the Roman's expense for nigh on 30+ years before Sassanid expansion was checked.

>And I might add that the Romans never had plans to conquer Parthia
Hearsay says Caesar might've, Crassus intended to, Antony intended to, and Trajan certainly intended to.

Stop lying.

>Rome could get rid of those annoying niggers once and for all.
>implying
The Persians more than showed that they could beat back the Romans blow for blow and then some. In fact, Rome for most of it's imperial history was a despotic shithole. A miracle that Persia didn't get rid of them since they were by far the most stable and rich.

>Ardashir defeated Severus outside of Ctesiphon

And then the Sassanids got pushed back and defeated by Gordian III.

>our claim about Shapur is also utterly and completely nonsensical.

Why? Crisis of the Third Century hit Rome when Shapur made his conquests. And the Romans under Galienus still pushed back the Sassanids.
>Hearsay says
Trajan died before he could. Antony never planned on conquering Persia and he had way more immediate concerns. Crassus' campaign was a private one and Caesar died before he could, as well as Trajan.

kek