PARTHICOS

the greatest is hannibal army at cannae, he defeated a well trained roman army that has superior numbers than his. alesia not comparable to cannae, gaugamela and other great outnumber battles, you see in alesia a well train roman army fought against some stoopid northern barbarian, in cannae two great civilization clash in gaugamela same thing even during those times they call carthage and persia as barbarians, but in reality they are equally civilized like rome and greece.

i think that is a barbarian battle preliminary to remind them to fight and protect their ladys, because if they don't win this battle the romans will have fun with their women and especially the one riding on the pony as for the romans battle preliminary maybe a sacrifice to jupiter and other gods and a speech from the general and off we go to conquer some barbarian.

he didn't go west, because rome was not a threat to macedonia.

By the time Attila became a problem for the Romans his army was probably made up of more non-Hunnic allies than Huns. slaves not non-hunnic, this slaves are taught how to fight the romans and other barbarians using hunnic tactic. to a westerner point of view, there are many eastern armies at that time that can match rome best army. the parthians later sassanid(persian) empire can match them the indian and the chinese at that time got huge armies with thousands of infantry, cavalry and armored elephants that can match the romans. the steppe horseman are some of the best in the world during this time like the huns this guys make rome run to the barbarians for help. If the Parthians and Persians were such a match why was Parthia and later Persia constantly invaded by Roman Armies and thier capital of Cstepion sacked by Rome no less than 5 times. The farthest West the Persians, (not the Parthians because they never invaded the Roman Empire), got was Antioch and this was not until the 6th century AD... The Huns did not appear until the very late 4th Century early 5th Century AD... when we say "of thier time" we are refereing to the period of the mid/late republic to the high empire... and during this time, only the Parthians/Perians could attempt to match the Romans but still fell short in the end. We know little of the Indian and Chinese armies of the time, how they were organized or exactly how many numbers or how well trained they were... just because an army has thousands of troops does not make it an instant victory. Numbers alone cannot guarentee victory... they invaded and capture the capital during times where parthia was fighting a civil war, but once the roman knew that they are united and ready to face a single foe rome started to withdrew because they know that a storm is coming.

Wow... where to begin... Yes Alexander reached India, but he did not stay nor did his presece of that of his successors last very long in India... Alexander did not create his empire by himself... he had not only the best trained army in the world, (due to his father not Alexander), and he had excellent generals under him who could be argued were the reason for Alexander's success... ...also, Alexander's empire practically crumbled upon his death, while the Roman empire lasted hundreds of years later and left a greater legacy to the world than his short lived one. You just combined a dozen different scenario's concerning Parthia... Caesar had delevoped plans for the East as did Marc Antony but none of them came to fruition because of the civil wars that occured so that cannot be used against them. In addition, Alexander only went East and expanded all in that direction, Rome went North, South, East and West... thier attention was divided much more around. Of course Rome isn't that powerful, she was just starting to dominate central Italy around the time of Alexander... so you cannot compare the two. Alexander and his Macedonian Empire was at it's peak, while Rome was still a fledgling Republic... Pyrrhus was defeated in the end by his own allies in Italy who once they won under Pyrrhus thought they did not need him and once Rome defeated them they pleaded for Pyrrhus' aid once more. His allies were just as a threat to him as Rome was and this is not including the Antigonids in Macedonia. The Gallic Sack of Rome was in the 4th century bc, not the 3rd... which is when Pyrrhus was in Italy. In fact it was in 390bc, much longer before Alexander and before Macedonia was more than a backwater hole of little value. You present weak arguements... besides the inheirent fact the two cannot be compared since in no way would an Imperial Roman Army vs Alexander's Macedonian Army. it seems that i make you mado my friendo, you said rome went north, south, west and east maybe even outer space, but rome rule a tiny portion of the east not the whole eastern world, they may rule the west but not the east my friend they hit a brick wall in parthia. when they hit this wall they scratch their heads and ask each other how did alexander went further than us man..juiceist caesta

ATTILA rome sent a man of god to deal with this badass.

to a westerner point of view, there are many eastern armies at that time that can match rome best army. the parthians later sassanid(persian) empire can match them the indian and the chinese at that time got huge armies with thousands of infantry, cavalry and armored elephants that can match the romans. the steppe horseman are some of the best in the world during this time like the huns this guys make rome run to the barbarians for help.

there are plenty worthy opponents from the north, but the parthian or sassanid empire did what no other opponent has done before by making a roman emperor kneel down to his knees so the king can step on his back on his way to his mount pretty cool stuff he...

The man reach india Rome did not, The man won his first encounter with elephants rome did not, The man create a large empire all by himself in a short time while the romans took 300 or 200 years with many generals to create what is called the roman empire. Caesar plans that were use by mark antony in his parthian campaign didn't work, cataphracts and the desert make them flee back to rome without crassus body. rome during alexander's time is not that powerful, 30 or 40 yrs after alexander death pyrrho of epirus defeat roman armies that were sent against him, only to be defeated by the lack of manpower and the roman carthago alliance, even northern barbarians sack rome around this time period, so if rome have a hard time with pyrrho alexander would have good time with them.