A message/reminder to Persiaboos

Even if your empire survived alexander, it will still be raped by the roman cock.

Rome couldn't conquer Parthia, and it was normally on the defensive against the Sassanids.

But still as predicable as that is, it'll be fun to see a showdown between Immortals vs Roman Legions

>Rome couldn't conquer Parthia
>a rogue billionaire is the military summation of Roman power
Caesar didn't even spit in their direction.

The thing with Iranian armies is this -- when they were being led by (semi)decent commanders, they fought effectively and valiantly, but once that commander fell, as they often did since in Iranian military ethos leaders should command from the front, the armies would flee the field.

In terms of equipment and probably training (we don't know much at all about how the Immortals trained), it'd probably go to the legions, but the Persian cavalry would make quick work of their Roman counterpart, after which it'd be anyone's guess who'd win.

Achaemenid Persia did not have the Rome-humiliating Cavalry Forces that Parthians and Sassy boys had.

You do know Rome and Parthia fought for centuries after Crassus, right? Just look up Mark Antony's miserable campaign against them. Trajan managed to extend the empire to its furthest extent, but they quickly found it impossible to maintain the territories to the east.

Who the fuck would anyone be (F)ersiaboo LMAO

Nigga HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAA
>(F)ersiaboo
MUHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHA

test

>The thing with Iranians armies is this - when they were being led by (semi)decent commanders, they fought effectively and valiantly
>but once that commander fell, as they often did since Iranian military ethos whose leaders should command from the front, the armies would flee the field
You can say this about any fucking army.
>We don't know much at all about the Immortals trained
Are you talking about Achaemenid era Immortals or Arsacid/Sassanian cavarlymen and using "Immortals" as a catch-all for professional Iranian soldiers? Because there are still significant historical evidence like reliefs, mosaics, Greek/Roman/Arab accounts, and even some pre-Islamic Iranian handbooks on those subjects have survived.

>You can say this about any fucking army.
Not really. Give me one example in Iranian history where they won a victory after their commander died in battle.

>Are you talking about Achaemenid era Immortals or Arsacid/Sassanian cavarlymen and using "Immortals" as a catch-all for professional Iranian soldiers?
Achaemenid. There really isn't much we know about them besides a bit of what Herodotus told us, and it seems he probably made a mistake in his classification of this unit, so who the hell knows how right anything he says is.

>Not really.
Yes really. You can find plenty examples of armies routing/breaking with the death of a commander or general or leader on the field. Stop pushing this nonsensical agenda.

Persian army was trash compared to Parthian.
They were great administrators and traders, but war? They were not so good at war.
If not Alexander, than someone else from somewhere else would have conquered them.

I think his point was that they relied particularly on their commanders, as in, more than most other armies.
You know, like how Romans relied on heavy infantry in their armies, but other armies totally also had heavy infantry.

Rome sacked the Persian capital Ctesiphon at least five time and looted the whole of Mesopotamia regularly, whereas the Persians never once got within 500 miles of Rome. In their very adt war, going all out, they managed to reach the walls of Constantinople and were stopped there.

I'm not a Romaboo, those are just facts.

>nonsensical agenda

Is everything online written by an user a conspiracy for you? I can give you specific battles from countless other people where their commanders died and they fought on despite the turn of event, yet not one from Iranian history. Prove me wrong if you can. This is something that Alireza Shapour Shahbazi stated decades ago.

How the fuck can they create one of the largest and most enduring empires of antiquity and yet be shit at war? They conquered everyone of worth in the region and beyond.

At least give the context of the situation. The capital of the Parthians and Sassanids was only a few dozen kilometers from the Roman border lacking any natural barrier. Rome and Constantinople were 1000+ miles away, the former separated by a large body of water.

bump

Yes but for the Romans it was a huge pain in the ass conducting a campaign in Mesopotamia. Parthians/Sassanids could raid and seize fortresses more easily, which is why you'll find Rome paying their enemy tribute more often than not. But when Rome decided to stop getting dicked down, whoever ruled Persia at the moment worried.

They relied on scale in every regard. They won by archer dominance almost every time.

Pretty sure there was a plague in the area that was brought back to Rome

90% of the "sackings" of Ctesiphon were against the Arsacids dynasty/Parthians, dude. There's only one verified attested capture of it against the Sassanians and one other unverified claim that is likely historically untrue given a certain Roman Emperor died immediately despite "winning a war" against the Persians. Don't be dishonest.

Oh that's why Ardashir, Shapur I, Shapur II, and several other Persian Emperors have beaten the Romans/Byzantine not once but even multiple times in their reigns?

You can find others just as many if not more of other nations armies scattering/breaking/routing of a leader being killed on the field, even when holding the advantage.

Calm down Emir, just because you've only existed for 1000 years.