Who would win, Romans or Persians, if it wasn't for those rashidun caliphates?

Who would win, Romans or Persians, if it wasn't for those rashidun caliphates?

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_studies_on_Turkish_people
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

depend on which one collapses and rebuilds itself first

Byzantines. Persians were devastated more after the Byzantines destroyed their invading army. They should've launched an invasion into Mesopotamia and conquered the rest of Persia.

Romans because they had the black warrior on their side

Neither. Why do you think they kept fighting? Who would win between the USA and USSR? Pointless war and countless deaths would not make any meagre gains worth it. Why do you think anatolia and persia are now Muslim.

Greeks and (F)ersians are equally sissy races

>Byzantines
Then why was the "victorious" Heraclius unable to militarily dislodge Shahrabaraz's army from Syria or Egypt and directly avoided another battle because he decided to engage him more then a year after hostilities had already ceased in diplomatic talks?

...

>persians
>winning anything, ever

pick one.

...

Byzantium. Sassanids got BTFO hard on their last war, far far more devastating than what they did to the Byzantines
Probably long term hold over the region would have been unlikely, either the Sassanids would have been made a vassal state of sorts or destroyed/ some steppenigger would have invaded

This is now a feels thread.
The victorious conclusion of the war cemented Heraclius' position as one of history's most successful generals. He was hailed as "the new Scipio" for his six years of unbroken victories and for leading the Roman army where no Roman army had ever gone before.[64][144] The triumphal raising of the True Cross in the Hagia Sophia was a crowning moment in his achievements. Had Heraclius died then, he would have been recorded in history, in the words of the historian Norman Davies, as "the greatest Roman general since Julius Caesar".[64] Instead, he lived through the Arab invasions, losing battle after battle against their onslaught and tarnishing his reputation for victory. John Norwich succinctly described Heraclius as having "lived too long".[149]

>btfo hard
>Heraclius avoids fighting another war with a Persian general holding Egypt, Syria, still parts of Roman Levant and has to spend a year bribing and paying him off to leave because he doesn't want to fight him because the Byzantine forces were equaled in numbers by the Persians
>Goturks got raped in all three wars despite the Persians fighting a two-front war the entire time with them and the Byzantines at the same time
Sad, Memet!

>Heraclius avoids fighting another war with a Persian general holding Egypt, Syria, still parts of Roman Levant and has to spend a year bribing and paying him off to leave because he doesn't want to fight him because the Byzantine forces were equaled in numbers by the Persians

That's a funny way of saying "exploited gaping internal divisions and failure of central command in Persia before marching straight to Nineveh and then setting Khosrau's house on fire.

No, retard. The war was already over during all of this. The Sassanid Shah, Khosrau II Parviz's son, Kavadh II, who took the throne after his father's forced abdication and imprisonment, signed a peace treaty returning everything back to its pre-war levels and borders between the Sassanids and Byzantines. Shahrabaraz was STILL occupying Egypt, Syria, and several other Byzantine territories militarily for a fucking year and had army with equivalent strength to Heraclius veteran leftovers. Heraclius then spends that entire time avoiding him because Shahrabaraz is the only Persian general besides Shahin who matched him and the only one whose inflicted a defeat him in the past. The war ended in 629 AD, Shahbaraz didn't decide to leave until Heraclius payed him off in 630 AD.

>Arab Invasion
>bad
lmaoing at your life wh*Te dog
Khalid ibn al-BULL>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Heraclius

Not him but the last war ended in 628 AD where the peace treaty was signed between the Persians and Romans in spring 628 AD after the Battle of Nineveh in December 627 AD. According to Cambridge's history of Egypt, Shahrabaraz's troops didn't leave Egypt till June or July 629/30, handing it back over to Heraclius/Romans.

To be fair, like said, this Persian guy was the only one who matched Heraclius in actual battle, so its probably why the Byzantines preferred diplomacy over another potential battle/follow up war.

>The Persian evacuation of Egypt was peaceful, following the July 629 agreement at Arabissos between Heraclius and Shahrabaraz. The Persians departed swiftly, perhaps within two months of the 629 agreement.
>The size of the Persian occupation force defies expectation or estimation but the best Persian troops had probably left Egypt by July 629 AD to accompany Shahrabaraz to the Cilician Gates and the vicinity of Alexendretta.
So to make the skinny of it: this is already after Khosrau II was overthrown, killed, and most importantly a year after the peace treaty between Khosrau II's successor and Heraclius.

If only Khosrau II didn't want to kill Shahbaraz (might have been Byzantine propaganda), which led to Shahbaraz going rogue. Shahbaraz was a brilliant general.

...

Reminder that based Bedouin Arabs destroyed 2 cancerous empires known as Rome and Fersia
fucking sedentary cucks

for a turk, you have a really weird obsession with araps.

nah i just loathe Fersians and Greeks

Eastern Roman Empire should've invaded Hejaz and vassalized/converted the tribes there.

>Two large spanning nations train and use desert people to fight proxy wars for decades, turning them from untrained tribal savages to a sophisticated war making machine sprinkled with religious fervor to cause mass chaos and destruction
hmm really makes you think

>ERE
>Conquering any tribe
I think you forgot how our Queen Mavia destroyed Romans in Syrian deserts

...

wh*Tes are so funny. No way y'all that garbage at roasting to where y'all immediately just gotta say roach :DDDD

heraclius is overrated desu, if he were anywhere near as great as caesar like people said he shouldve been able to stomp a bunch of sandnigger bandits in yarmouk, but he didnt and lost syria, egypt and the entire north africa in the process

if that was an unprotectable overextended ego masturbation mess in the golden age then i somehow don't think the byzantines could have held onto it in any impactful long term sense either

Are you that turk from /int/ whi was butthurt about his sultan being aryan?

ottomans were J2
deal with it you amerimutt subhuman.
Also Amerimutts are the only people that i loathe even more than Fersians or Greeks or wh*Tes

Why couldn't the greatest Roman general since Julius Caesar defeat the Arabs?

> roach in denial

>Amerimutt subhuman
fuck off before i kick your mutt skull in, mutt.

wew lad
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_studies_on_Turkish_people

>haplogroups=race
Amerimutts everybody
every nation in Eurasia has haplogroups like that. you dumbass amerimutt.
When will i get to behead an Amerimutt already

>greatest Roman general since Julius Caesar
That's not Belisarius nor Aurelian

Obviously the Greeks
The Persians were collapsing and under the assault of the Turkic nomadsd allied with the Greeks while the Greeks were reconquering their lands(Heraclius)

> roach calling others mutts

>Amerimutt calling anyone mutt

Uh
He defeated Heraclius at least three to five times.
Shahbaraz:
>Antioch
>Damascus
>Dara/Syria
>Anatolia (near Iraq/Syria borders)
>Sarus river
Shahin:
>Caucasian Albania
Mite be reason to figure why the other user said that given how much problems the top Sassanid general kept giving Heraclius and his top commanders during the war why he didn't want to fight Shahbaraz even when he was holding Roman Egypt, Syria, and Levant still a full year after the peace treaty had already ended the conflict.

Romans had Huns
Persians had Islamists

Both were being fucked at around the same time and were on the verge of collapse.

If the Persians didn't have the Islamists, they'e be in superior position. But that doesn't say much as they were both declining/stagnating in power even without those two forces. One of the main reason both the Huns and the Islamists dealt heavy damage to their respective empires were due to their stagnation.

The Huns were defeated by the Western Romans and a few years after that lost their empire completely as in-fighting destroyed the fragile confederation Atilla and his brother forged. And the main reason why the Huns attacked the Eastern Romans and later Western Romans was because the Persians defeated them in two major battles in the Caucasus and Eurasia which deflected them westwards.

Dunno what you mean by "Islamists" though.

> TW Attila player goes on his
The hunnic empire was completely lost, but they still remained as mercenary forces. I believe belisarius brought some along in North Africa to defeat the Vandals.

>persians
>human

We should bomb them to the stone age with Israel, they are the apex sandniggers

>TW Attila player
I don't get this meme.
>The hunnic empire was completely lost
That was my point. They were directed westwards toward the Eastern and Western Romans because the Persians/Sassanids were in their first golden age and defeated two attempts by the Huns to invade their lands. The only "Huns" that gave the Persians trouble for an extended period of time was the White Huns, whose long-lasting legacy was basically weakening Central Asia to migrating Turkic tribes.

Time to burn some faggot persian ass

lmao saved

>saving crap like that

good one.

Persia is litearlly mick jagger, who tf is that dude in the suit anyways? Garbage.

>responding to (You)r own posts
This is kind of sad.

t. assblasted persian cuckold

The last time that an iranian dynasty collapsed romans had to face an even more dangerous one, tho

What. He was from fucking Carthage and crossed the black sea several times to attack Azerbaijan.

After Attila became famous, half the people of the steppe suddenly became huns in the sources.

I realized what the guy was saying now.
I thought he was referring to them as mercs and not a separate power which weakened both empires.

He thinks the war was in the 450's (with Attila) which is a good 150 years after the start of the Byz-Sassanian war.

My bad/

Rome hands down

>5 minutes later
lol

>Heraclius finally returned to his capital in 638, over a bridge of boats designed to allay his hydrophobia
Warren Treadgold, "A history of Byzantine State and Society".