Romans Really Only Worthy Opponents Parthians?

[Virgil61]

...

My conclusion: Parthians were the real adversary when Rome was Rome and Caesar was about to invade them before his assination. So the Romans sacked the capital....they still were defeated by the Parthians many times and suffered their greatest loss of Roman legionaires against these Parthians on open battlefields!

 

Quite frankly after the establishment of the Principate and the military figured out how to deal with their tactics it becomes more and more difficult to find a war with Parthia that the Romans didn't win. Not only did Rome sack the capital, it did so at least three times (maybe four) and the final sacking under Septimius Severus arguably led to the downfall of the Parthian dynasty to the Persians.

[Neos Dionysos]

...

My conclusion: Parthians were the real adversary when Rome was Rome and Caesar was about to invade them before his assination. So the Romans sacked the capital....they still were defeated by the Parthians many times and suffered their greatest loss of Roman legionaires against these Parthians on open battlefields!

 

Quite frankly after the establishment of the Principate and the military figured out how to deal with their tactics it becomes more and more difficult to find a war with Parthia that the Romans didn't win. Not only did Rome sack the capital, it did so at least three times (maybe four) and the final sacking under Septimius Severus arguably led to the downfall of the Parthian dynasty to the Persians.

 

 

It was, and you could argue that Rome was trading in an enemy who was something they could deal with, with one they could not and had to divert more time and energy to. The Sassinad Persians were much more aggressive and proved to be much more of a threat than Parthia ever posed. Parthia was bad yes, but they were never offensive, if they were it was as a defensive counter-measure. Persia on the other hand was very aggressive and very offensive. More men, money and resources now needed to be diverted to this critical front and the struggle would continue until Heraclius in the 7th Century finally broke the Persian's back, though he exhausted his own forces in doing so, thus leaving both empires prime targets for the Muslim warriors of Islam to sweep over the land, overwhelm and destroy the remnants of Persia and to take half of the Eastern Roman Empire.

[Germanicus]

they still were defeated by the Parthians many times and suffered their greatest loss of Roman legionaires against these Parthians on open battlefields!

 

Ariovistus - when you make a claim like this, it would good....and in line with forum guidlines to back it up with some examples, and even sources outlining what the "many times" were, and what you mean by "greatest loss" .Similar to your thread regarding the Roman military diet, where you claim that "all the souces say legions lived on gruel" - give us the sources or you won't be taken seriously !

[Viggen]

Sometimes i wish people would look at a map once in a while...

...remember that 2000 years ago a couple of hundred miles was a different matter then it is today, add logistical problems and then you might have your answers....

 

regards

viggen

[Virgil61]

...

 

It was, and you could argue that Rome was trading in an enemy who was something they could deal with, with one they could not and had to divert more time and energy to. The Sassinad Persians were much more aggressive and proved to be much more of a threat than Parthia ever posed. Parthia was bad yes, but they were never offensive, if they were it was as a defensive counter-measure. Persia on the other hand was very aggressive and very offensive. More men, money and resources now needed to be diverted to this critical front and the struggle would continue until Heraclius in the 7th Century finally broke the Persian's back, though he exhausted his own forces in doing so, thus leaving both empires prime targets for the Muslim warriors of Islam to sweep over the land, overwhelm and destroy the remnants of Persia and to take half of the Eastern Roman Empire.

 

That is the next chapter of the story, unfortunately no one could have really foreseen that outcome. The rise of the Persians was also bad timing coinciding with Rome's 3rd century troubles. Like the old saying says; Better the devil you know then the one you don't.

Edited January 24, 2006 by Virgil61

[Neos Dionysos]

The rise of the Persians was also bad timing coinciding with Rome's 3rd century troubles. Like the old saying says; Better the devil you know then the one you don't.

 

You know, considering the "3rd Century Crisis", Rome proved pretty damn reslieant and adaptable. So many claiments to the throne, insecure borders, new threats on every front of the Roman world and still Rome not only came out of the crisis intact, one might argue she was now more defienant than ever to keep her dominance in the world. Whether it was still fully possible is debatable, (I think it was), but you can't argue that until the late 4th Century, Rome was acting like she did in the Republician days of brutality and lethality in securing herself and truely punishing those who opposed her.

[Kosmo]

The deadliest enemy of the romans were the romans.

The Danube border was the most dangerous region of the empire where more legions were based then in any other area and hardest battles fought many of them lost.

Dacic/getic invasions of Moesia and the long wars with the marcomans and scyths/sarmats and countless others combined with harsh weather and poor areas made this the dangerous spot where first the goths and later the huns will strike.

Edited February 2, 2006 by Kosmo

[Centurion Legioneer]

The Romans were the best army of their time. The Parthians relied mostly on superior numbers to win battles. The Romans had supreme tactics, and weapons. The Parthians though discovered that the Romans used simular battle tactics in each fight. Thought the Roman tactics were hard to counter, the Parthians could sometimes counter their tactics, but mostly the romans were too good and powerful, and would then subsequently crush the parthians counter-attack.

Edited February 4, 2006 by Centurion Legioneer

[PARTHICOS]

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...

[PARTHICOS]

The Romans were the best army of their time. The Parthians relied mostly on superior numbers to win battles. The Romans had supreme tactics, and weapons. The Parthians though discovered that the Romans used simular battle tactics in each fight. Thought the Roman tactics were hard to counter, the Parthians could sometimes counter their tactics, but mostly the romans were too good and powerful, and would then subsequently crush the parthians counter-attack.

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.

[Virgil61]

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...

 

Look up the Emperor Heraclius.

[Neos Dionysos]

The Romans were the best army of their time. The Parthians relied mostly on superior numbers to win battles. The Romans had supreme tactics, and weapons. The Parthians though discovered that the Romans used simular battle tactics in each fight. Thought the Roman tactics were hard to counter, the Parthians could sometimes counter their tactics, but mostly the romans were too good and powerful, and would then subsequently crush the parthians counter-attack.

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...

[Virgil61]

...

he 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.

 

By the time Attila became a problem for the Romans his army was probably made up of more non-Hunnic allies than Huns.

[PARTHICOS]

...

he 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.

 

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.

 

The Romans were the best army of their time. The Parthians relied mostly on superior numbers to win battles. The Romans had supreme tactics, and weapons. The Parthians though discovered that the Romans used simular battle tactics in each fight. Thought the Roman tactics were hard to counter, the Parthians could sometimes counter their tactics, but mostly the romans were too good and powerful, and would then subsequently crush the parthians counter-attack.

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.

[Pantagathus]

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.

 

Overlooking the humerous statement about a coming storm, what you describe sounds like a sound strategy employed by the Romans...