Aurelianus Posted November 22, 2006 Report Share Posted November 22, 2006 Every roman general who planed or led a campaign of conquest beyond the eastern Mediterranean either failed, or had short lived success. I use the word curse rather loosely. Both Caesar and Aurelian (i think there was another, but I cant remember who) were assassinated just before they set off, Crassus and others failed miserably, Pompey and Augustus didn Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pantagathus Posted November 22, 2006 Report Share Posted November 22, 2006 or just parthian/sassanid superiority? Leaving the curse aspect aside for the moment, I think it had quite a bit more to do with supply & logistics than battlefield superiority. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Primus Pilus Posted November 22, 2006 Report Share Posted November 22, 2006 Every roman general who planed or led a campaign of conquest beyond the eastern Mediterranean either failed, or had short lived success. I use the word curse rather loosely.Both Caesar and Aurelian (i think there was another, but I cant remember who) were assassinated just before they set off, Crassus and others failed miserably, Pompey and Augustus didn Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aurelianus Posted November 22, 2006 Author Report Share Posted November 22, 2006 I think that it was more likely internal instability within Rome than anything. there was very rarely an imperial succession that was without doubt, and especialy towards the later empire there was large amounts of civil war. An invasion would have needed huge resources, and would have required internal and external peace every where else in the empire, as this usualy occered after a strong monarch had been ruling for a long time, and if they have been ruling for a long time they are unlikely to want millitary glory, or near death... conditions were never right, but if they had been, then do you think it would have been possible? If Caesar had lived, if Julian had planed better, if Aurelian hadn't been killed... Â I must just say that im not entirely serious about the curse, and should have put it in inverted commas. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Titus001 Posted November 23, 2006 Report Share Posted November 23, 2006 All i got too say about parthia is did they ever march on rome and take rome's gold?No, they did not,the reason for this is b/c you cant take city walls when your army is mostly made up by horsearchers and knights,the romans on the other hand sacked parthias capital 3 or 4 times i think. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kosmo Posted November 23, 2006 Report Share Posted November 23, 2006 Trajan was very succesful in his campaign. He was very close to a victory as he conquered Armenia and Mesopotamia up to the Golf and established alliances with several kings of west Parthia. The jewish rebellion in the eastern areas of the empire delivered a serious blow to his plans as he had to send some troops back. His illness and the fact that parthian army was largely intact compounded the problems. If Hadrian had felt more secure of the purple a victory was still possible but Mesopotamia would still be exposed to attacks. It was an open terrain loosly connected with the rest of the empire, an easy target for cavalry attack from the safety of Zagros mountains. So, for romans to hold it they needed to conquer the iranian hinterland. Not a fun prospect. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caesar CXXXVII Posted November 23, 2006 Report Share Posted November 23, 2006 Â Â Sometimes it was successful, sometimes not. Neither the Romans nor the Parthians could inflict complete victories over the other, though the war of Septimius Severus was devastating for the Parthians (leading the establishment of the Persian Sassanid dynasty). In my opinion... simply, the Roman infantry based armies had difficulty with Parthian cavalry, and the Parthian armies were not well equipped for the siege warfare necessary to defeat and hold Roman strongholds. Â Â Â Agreed . The Romans even took Ctesiphon (Parthian: Tyspwn) , one of the 2 parthian "Capitals" more than ones . Â The interesting "fact" is that actually there wes a curse ! Â "And yet in the decree which was passed regarding his mission there was no mention of a Parthian war. But everybody knew that Crassus was all eagerness for this, and Caesar wrote to him from Gaul approving of his project, and inciting him on to the war. And when Ateius, one of the tribunes of the people, threatened to oppose his leaving the city, and a large party arose which was displeased that anyone should go out to wage war on men who had done the state no wrong, but were in treaty relations with it, then Crassus, in fear, begged Pompey to come to his aid and to join in escorting him out of the city. For great was Pompey's reputation with the crowd. And now, when the multitude drawn up to resist the passage of Crassus, and to abuse him, saw Pompey's beaming countenance in front of him, they were mollified, and gave way before them in silence. But Ateius, on meeting Crassus, at first tried to stop him with words, and protested against his advance; then he bade his attendant seize the person of Crassus and detain him. And when the other tribunes would not permit this, the attendant released Crassus, but Ateius ran on ahead to the city gate, placed there a blazing brazier, and when Crassus came up, cast incense and libations upon it, and invoked curses which were dreadful and terrifying in themselves, and were reinforced by sundry strange and dreadful gods whom he summoned and called by name. The Romans say that these mysterious and ancient curses have such power that no one involved in them ever escapes, and misfortune falls also upon the one who utters them, wherefore they are not employed at random nor by many. And accordingly at this time they found fault with Ateius because it was for the city's sake that he was angered at Crassus, and yet he had involved the city in curses which awakened much superstitious terror." (Plutarch , Crassus) . Â Imagine that... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caldrail Posted November 25, 2006 Report Share Posted November 25, 2006 Supernatural influences notwithstanding, the romans experienced difficulties with the partians/persians because their numbers were comparable, their nation states coherent enough to mount stern resistance, their economies strong enough to pay for armies, and because the tactics employed by them were alien to roman warfare. In fact, Rome seems to have struggled to adapt. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Titus001 Posted November 25, 2006 Report Share Posted November 25, 2006 Well what you said caldrail is kind of true about rome with parthia but its mostly a myth that rome stuggled with horse people's.Did parthia ever march on rome and sack its capital?And you say the tactics of parthia were alien to the romans? lol thats kind of funny thats what the pro han people said about rome, that there tactics were backwards to parthia and han china.Parthia did have better cavarly but they lacked siege warfare to take city walls,and its kind of hard to take cities with walls if you dont have siege and also if most of the army is cavarly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Virgil61 Posted November 25, 2006 Report Share Posted November 25, 2006 (edited) because the tactics employed by them were alien to roman warfare. In fact, Rome seems to have struggled to adapt. Â Completely untrue vis a vis the Parthians. This has persisted as a silly myth for ages. The Romans especially from the 1st century AD, on handled the Parthian tactics rather well, even adopting some things like heavy cavalry themselves. Except for Antony and Crassus' bitter forays the Romans gave to the Parthians much better than they got. The rise of the Persians can partially be attributed to Parthian weakness caused by Septimius Severus' sacking of their capital and the massive amount of capital depleted from their treasuries. Â EDIT: I'd posit that the struggle with Persia became difficult as much because of the internal civil wars of the 3d century within Rome and what I'd say is the qualitative decline of the Roman Army because of them than anything else. Edited November 25, 2006 by Virgil61 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Julius Ratus Posted November 29, 2006 Report Share Posted November 29, 2006 Sackings of Capitals  Rome: 0 (by Parthians/Sassanids) Ctesiphon: 7(ish)  Seriously, the Parthians could not be conquered by the Romans but the Romans did far more damage to the Parthians than they did to the Romans. It was the Romans who created the weakness in the Parthians that led to the Sassanid Persians taking over. The Sassanids were destroyed by the moslems. Seems like the Byzantines and the Sassanids should have been working together instead of fighting. The world would be a better place today if they had. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Titus001 Posted November 29, 2006 Report Share Posted November 29, 2006 Maybe the european style of fighting of the romans and europeans in the medieval period were kind of backwards to parthia,han china and the mongols in style of fighting.Mongols, han china and parthia were horsepeople favored hit and run tactics.The romans were a slower type of fighter with heavy infantry supported by cavarly and archers and some artillery.So with a slow army dominated with infantry how would they do against the horse people that favor speed,range and cavarly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pertinax Posted November 29, 2006 Report Share Posted November 29, 2006 Sackings of Capitals Rome: 0 (by Parthians/Sassanids) Ctesiphon: 7(ish)  Seriously, the Parthians could not be conquered by the Romans but the Romans did far more damage to the Parthians than they did to the Romans. It was the Romans who created the weakness in the Parthians that led to the Sassanid Persians taking over. The Sassanids were destroyed by the moslems. Seems like the Byzantines and the Sassanids should have been working together instead of fighting. The world would be a better place today if they had.  The internal dynastic feuds of the Parthians and Sassanids put the everyday treachery and duplicity of Rome into the shade , the Clan loyalties of the various factions seem to weave a fabric of constant treachery and subversion around any ruler without a "vision of power". If Rome weakened any ruler by its actions the internal strife of the Empire was enough to bring down such a person.Im inclined to suggest that the military technology that was the most effective , (clibanarius and cataphract) was the sociall seat of all the Empire's misfortunes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Callaecus Posted December 16, 2006 Report Share Posted December 16, 2006 I think that the Romans were never really interested in the East. All attempts of conquest of the East were the result of men who wished to emulate Alexander and not of a united Roman effort. Thus the all the efforts were always half-hearted, never surviving its patron. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Titus001 Posted December 23, 2006 Report Share Posted December 23, 2006 Sorry Callaecus you are wrong,The east had very much wealth and was on the silk trade route which parthia was the middle man.And most likely they drove up the prices of silk since they were the middle man between rome and china. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.