Were the Sassanids the 'good guys'?

you do know that it was the Sassanids who declared war almost every time. They saw Syria and Egypt as theirs, Because 1000 years ago Persians took it from the Assyerians

>Ardashir I declared war twice, the first time demanding all Achaemenid territory back
>Shapur I four times
>Shapur II twice
>Kavadh I twice
>Khosrau I once
>Khosrow II once

>Theodosius declared war because of the killing of Christians under Bahram V and refused to release Roman gold diggers hired by the Sassanids.
>Justinian twice, both times sparked by Persian client states wanting out

Maybe shit was different under the Parthians, but here we can see the Sassanids were at fault more often than not, constantly breaking treaties to take back territory that belonged to a long gone dynasty.

You are really dumb dude. Parthia and the Parthians have always been closest to the Persians, the province in Iran is literally adjacent to Persia (Pars/Fars) for thousands of years. The Arsacids and Sassanians retained everything the same, they are two different faces of the last pre-Islamic Iranian empire, one dynasty coming after the other, speaking the same language and everything else. I know like the other anons have pointed out you are full of it when you claim Parthians are a different "ethnicity" from Persians or claiming they spoke a different language.

>Sassanids
Its Sassanians for one.
>who declared war almost every time
So what? Why are you literally crying sour grapes over the Persians doing to the Eastern Romans what the Romans did to the Parthians? Its called karma, its a bitch, get over it.
>at fault
Please pull your head out of your ass.

Hey, if the Sassanians hadn't been such dicks Persian culture wouldn't have been destroyed by Islam. I guess that's karma. Or maybe just break a few treaties, but god damn. what a waste.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parthian_Empire
>literally started by some central asian iranics
>Before Arsaces I of Parthia founded the Arsacid Dynasty, he was chieftain of the Parni, an ancient Central-Asian tribe of Iranian peoples and one of several nomadic tribes within the confederation of the Dahae

They were close but to claim they're one and the same is foolish. They had their own language and customs which were influenced by the Persians, so at best they were Persiaboos. Are the Romans Greek because they too spoke Greek and followed many Hellenic customs?

>central asian iranics
Parthia isn't in Central Asia, dork.
>Parni
Parni are another Iranian people. I'm pretty familiar with Iranian history in Antiquity and don't need to constantly look at Wikipedia articles to be informed on how the Arsacid dynasty showed up.
>own language
Why is Parthian completely intelligible with Persian then in Antiquity?
>customs
Parni were completely assimilated and absorbed by the Parthians and Persians, they followed the exact same one as their landed and sedentary Iranian kin and nothing distinct from that before LARPING as Scythian and Sarmatian wannabes.
>Persiaboos
No, they were being the same as any other Iranic people. Rest of your claim and argument is nonsensical because Italics are more distinct from Greeks and are closer to Celtics then one Iranian people are from another.

Hey, if the Romans hadn't been such dicks Roman culture wouldn't have been destroyed by Arabs and Turks. I guess that's karma. Or maybe just break a few greaties, but god damn, what a waste.

So, why did the Roman's attempts to conquer Persia fail?

Was it because of mutiny?

>literally being so ass-blasted you have no idea what you are talking about
So let me get this straight: you completely ignore and try to deflect from the fact the Romans had consistently broken dozens of treaties of friendship, non-aggression, and what not with the Parthians/Arsacids to constantly stab them in the back and handwave that away. But when the Persians/Sassanians do it to the Romans/Byzantines, that's wrong solely because its the Persians doing it?

Dude, you have some hypocritical standards.

Romans never ever got remotely close to conquering Persia even when the Parthians and Persians kept and retained their capital like 100 kilometers away from the Roman/Persian boarders. Also post-4th century, both empires main priotires seemed to be more about looting and propping up client kingdoms and states as buffer zones then actual outright conquest.

Yes.

No I mean, before the west fell

Because the Persians were preempting aggressive wars in the first place to prevent that from happening by instigating them instead of waiting for the Romans to do so against them. You have to remember, there had already been two or three Roman invasions by the late 2nd century when House Sasan started its conspiracy to overthrow the Arsacid dynasty and likely a huge part of that was due to the Parthians allowing these constant invasions and fighting defensive wars which a lot of historians have attributed as being one of the main reasons why the Sassanians were able to sway so many of the great houses and other nobles to turn against their overlords to their own cause. So that catalyst along with not wanting to have another embarassing defensive war caused by the likes of Trajan, Aurelius, Severus, etc...was why.

>Roman Empire
WE

>Parthia isn't in Central Asia, dork.
>Parni are another Iranian people. I'm pretty familiar with Iranian history in Antiquity and don't need to constantly look at Wikipedia articles to be informed on how the Arsacid dynasty showed up.
The point is that the Parthian empire came from non-Persian origins.

>Why is Parthian completely intelligible with Persian then in Antiquity?
Because they were in contact with the Persians? Armenian is/was intelligible with Persian and Parthian as well so this means nothing.

>Parni were completely assimilated and absorbed by the Parthians and Persians, they followed the exact same one as their landed and sedentary Iranian kin and nothing distinct from that before LARPING as Scythian and Sarmatian wannabes.
Source? Wiki states that the Parni continue to be mentioned in the Sassanid era.

>No, they were being the same as any other Iranic people. Rest of your claim and argument is nonsensical because Italics are more distinct from Greeks and are closer to Celtics then one Iranian people are from another.
Sure and I'm saying that they're still not the same. If they were why bother distinguishing them? It's called Iran for reason.

>Armenian is/was intelligible with Persian
Lol, it fucking wasn't. Where did you pull that bullshit out of?

You are literally retarded I have no idea where to start. Look at the map, Parthia has always been historically next to Persia in Iran. On top of that, the Parni were a clan in the Dahae Confederacy, not a tribe. So no, and I never said the Parthians were Persians. You are strawmanning all over the place.
>Because they were in contact with Persians?
Parthian was always intelligible with Persian, just like Median. It has nothing to do with "contact", you aspie. It wasn't made artificially bridging into being understandable by Persians and Parthians.
>Aremnian is/was intelligble with Persian and Parthian
No it wasn't you idiot.
>Parni
Parni was just the leadership. The Parthians are a fucking people. How the fuck would you need something so trivial as a source for this?
>they are not the same
>speak language that is more or less the same as Persian
>always follow the same culture, religions, and dress as well as festivals like Persians and other Iranic people do
>"Not the same, completely different though"
You are being obstinate on purpose aren't you?

>Parthian Empire starts from Parthia
>Shitty wikipedia article links put Parthia stemming in Central Asia despite attested evidence from past empires like the Achaemenids already noting the province of Parthia (Parthahava) being directly next to Pars itself by Cyrus the Great and Darius the Great
Man that wikipedia article is a fucking mess.

>I never said the Parthians were Persians
So why argue that the Sassanids and Parthians are basically the same? Jesus you're dense as fuck.

>Parthian was always intelligible with Persian, just like Median. It has nothing to do with "contact", you aspie. It wasn't made artificially bridging into being understandable by Persians and Parthians
Right because Parthian belonging to a separate branch of the Iranian family tree isn't relevant.

>No it wasn't you idiot.
My mistake, it was actually vocabulary, not grammar/structure.

>Parni was just the leadership. The Parthians are a fucking people. How the fuck would you need something so trivial as a source for this?
A people who aren't Persian.

>You are being obstinate on purpose aren't you?
You literally just said the Parthians aren't the same as the Persians. Oh wait, you said "other Iranic people". Are you saying all Iranians are somehow one whole ethnic group?

>My mistake, it was actually vocabulary, not grammar/structure
They may have shared some cognates and still do, but that doesn't at all mean mutual intelligibility.

>Visigoths that big
>Saxons that big
>Colonia???? where the fuck are franks?!
the hell is wrong with that map?

Not to mention Roman authority extends too far

>So why argue?
Because you have no idea what you are remotely talking about and the constant fact you keep trying to denote a family of Persians rather than Persians themselves with Parthians who have been historically almost completely indistinguishable from them is something that needs to be stopped.
>Jesus
Everything I said is true.
>Parthian language belongs to a separate branch of the Iranian family tree
It doesn't. Both Parthian and Pahlavi/Middle Persian are Western Iranian languages at their core. Also you still have no rebuttal for the fact Parthian has always been intelligible with Persian from the late Achaemenid Period up to the 200-300 years after the fall of the Sassanian dynasty.
>A people who aren't Persian.
Right, just like Medes despite speaking basically the same language. And by people you mean a fucking small caste of Iranians who were a leadership part of a confederation, not even an ethnic tribe. Its like calling Roman Priests a separate branch of Italics. Doesn't matter because Parthians were already living for millennia next to Persians and dominated by them as an influence well before that.
>*snip*
No, I literally said Parthians might as well be Persians because they speak a similar language that is understandable to a Persian at that time period, have always dressed like Persians, acted like Persians, behaved like Persians, followed the same faiths and customs as Persians. Don't point fingers at me when you thought Armenian was intelligible with Persian or that Parthia originated from fucking Central Asia.
>One whole ethnic group
That's why they are Iranics. So to recap:

>Parthians speak a language that basically is Persian
>Parthians already naturally look like Persians
>Parthians act like Persians
>Parthians have always lived next to Persians
>"Why do you mean they are basically Persians?"

>Spanish speak a language that is basically Italian
>Spanish already naturally look like Italians
>Spanish act like Italians
>Spanish have always lived next to Italians
>"Why do you mean they are basically Italians?"

This is a map of europe
As you can see, spain and italy aren't very close

Attached: images-2.png (307x164, 14K)

Are you retarded by chance?

This is a map of the seleucid empire before parthia took over
As you can see, they are very very close

Attached: 1200px-Rome-Seleucia-Parthia_200bc.jpg (1200x565, 219K)

Idiot.
Extreme idiot. Parthia was traditionally part of what makes up the modern province of Yazd in Iran today, you fucking retard.

Even in Achaemenid times we know Parthia was right next to Pars:

>In the west the province borders on Persis (see above 1.1.1), in the north on Parthia, because it includes the greatest part of the Dašt-e Lut, and in the east on Zranka/Drangiana and Maka/Gedrosia (Strab., 15.2.14). The frontier must have been marked by the lake Hāmun and the marshy country of western Sistān, and must have run south-southwest from that point to meet the coast near modern Bandar-e Jāsk, because Arrian reports that west of this border the coastal line bent northwest
Stop talking out of your ass. The map shows where the Parni and Dahae were coming in, not where Parthia was located.

no but neither were the byzantines. the arabs were.

Does Parthia look like it comes from Central Asia to you here, user?

Attached: The_Achaemenid_Empire_at_its_Greatest_Extent.jpg (3000x2250, 2.52M)

Another image.

Attached: Parthia_in_Achaemenid_Empire.jpg (1000x797, 321K)

>Type in location of ancient city or empire
>Google flights tab comes up

You mean you don't want to visit Damascus?

>visigoths and saxons

>a ethnolinguistic group is an ethnic group