Thanks for watching! Check out spqrshop.com/ref/Aditu-Laudis and use my promo code ''ADITUMMXXI'' for an extra 10%. Make sure to like and comment on the video and activate all notifications so you don't miss the next video.
I feel tremor to talk because laughers; but if Romans would had decided to nail a shield over the another one?,well after all them weren't the spartans, your dead comrade would not return over his shield. As far as know Romans had no ballistas accompanying them. Perhaps that had brought them some relief against Parthian bowmen
You don't know history very well do you... The biggest Roman disaster and defeat was at the battle of Cannae. 60,000+ Romans died in that battle! And what's this BCE??? It has to mean "Before Crap Existed!" Stop making videos, you obviously don't know what your talking about!
Why does the shop, you recommend, not have a cookies reject button like most ethical sites? I won't be buying from them. Sites that do not obey the law cannot be trusted.
The Editor did not mentioned the famous conversation between Crasus and the Parthian delegation elder .The elder of Parthian delegation called Vizgus asks Crasus, why you came to Iran? We in Parthia have been told your military adventure has not been sanctioned by Rome, if so our king will spare your life since you are an old man, we consider Roman army our hostages not an attacking force.Crasus answers I will reveal my intentions in Seleucia (western capital of Parthia). Vizgus opens his hand and shows his palm to Crasus and says if you ever see a hair grow from my palm you will ever see Seleucia.
As an Iranian, I've always been thinking why Hollywood or other western film makers aren't willing to produce historical movies about some direct conflicts between Iran (Parthia and Sassanids) and Rome!! Although they have ever made movies such like 300 or Alexander but they were through biased Lens against Iranians, this is really ironic why they never wanted to make movies about battles like Carrhae or Edessa over about one century of movie industry!!! While they made their defeated enemies like Atilla and Hannibal well-known so that today most common people around the world know them!! but who knows general Surena!! is he as famous as them?
Dear Metalix, as a Persian, I believe it would NOT be such a good idea for Hollywood to make a movie about this unforgettable event because as you mentioned yourself, look at all those few movies about Persia that Hollywood has made such as the 300 with tons and tons of inaccuracies. I bet you if they decide to make a movie about this battle, they will twist the story far from the truth and just like the movie 300, they will portray Crassus as a victorious man and they will wrongfully show us as bunch of barbaric uncivilized people and this way, they will misinform millions of people in the world just like they did it on movie 300. They will not show the true story so we'll be much better off without that movie being made and this way, the truth about this event will be well preserved. Trust me
They did...it was called kingdom of heaven. That film is so anti-christian it's sickening. Whole film Christians are portrayed as foul,ignorant, and invaders. Horseshit by the way. The crusades were a response to muslim incursions into christian lands.
@@dougbendo8817The Parthians were one of the three main Aryan tribes, which is clearly evident in all their stone inscriptions and books. If they were of Greek descent, how did they unite other Iranian peoples and revolt against Greece and take Iran back? This is while Greece was completely destroyed by Rome and Iran from both sides.
When you field the greatest Roman force in all of human history (to this day) with double-sized armies overloaded with customized super-legions (twice as many as any previous army & each group larger than any previous standard legion); when you are so overwhelmingly confident of victory that wealthy/noble houses fight to have as many family members as possible be apart of this historic force, choose the battle geography & location that greatly favors your military & desired style of warfare, initiate the conflict on your terms at your time with a well-fed, well-rested entourage at your healthiest & most powerful status to engage an assorted enemy conglomerate of clustered tribes, untrained countrymen & pay-for-play mercenaries. . . . . .& lose 90% of your force in a matter of *_HOURS!??_* including 80 senators, 2 quaestors, 2 consuls, a proconsul, 300 equestrians & 30 of the 48 military tribunes in a matter of *_HOURS!??_* in the 3rd year of a campaign you had already suffered 5 crushing defeats and this was your over-exaggerated, overplay’d overkill plan to inexhaustibly-obliterate said enemy for all time and less than 10% make it out of the battle alive in a matter of *_HOURS!??_* Guys, all the respect in the world for the battles of Carrhae, Teutoburg, even Arausio (which probably has the best argument based on sheer casualties tho the Romans were the overwhelmingly undersized force), my money for a single battle destruction (again, in a matter of *_HOURS!??_* ) has to be with *CANNAE.* _((Note to Romans: Never fight in a battle with a “T” or “C” leading the name😅 Ticinus, Trebia, Trasemene, Cannae, Carrhae, Teutoburg (forest), etc))_ #ExceptionalVideo #NewSubscriber
I get the personal taste stuff, but I don’t understand folks who try so hard to dismiss Cannae, especially in favor of Carrhae or Toutenburg. They’re great. Cannae’s epic.
and also, at the Battle of Edessa in 260 AD, the same catastrophe happened to the heavily armored Romans, because they never learned their lesson at Carrhae 300 years ago.
Well done man. Was fun to watch. It's a shame the total war engine doesn't give a bit more options to visually display the events. Like the camel caravan for arrow resupplies, the relatively ineffectiveness of the parthian arrows. and the unfortunate reality that total war doesn't do horse archers justice. Either way, great content, appreciate your time and content.
Romans not being accustomed to the desert is not correct. They had ruled Syria for more than a century when they faced the Parthian army in Carrhae. Another important point not mentioned here is that the main Parthian Army under the command of the Parthian king was fighting Armenia due to their disloyalty to the Parthian king as a vassal state. General Surena commanded 10000 men (9000 archers and 1000 Cataphracts) against the 40000+ army of Crassus. Three Roman legions were totally decimated and Iranians captured their highly regarded standards.
@@kouroshkhosropesar5391 ..... Numbers don't matter when you're on horseback and your adversary is on foot in the desert. The defeat mattered but numbers didn't under those circumstances.
Apparently, you personally are very upset about this defeat of the Roman army. You could not have made this video if it upsets you so much. It is better to look at history a little more impartially. If the Romans came to war with the Iranians on foot, if they fought with the Iranians in the desert, these were all signs of the Romans' weak logistics and weak management and command, which means that the Roman Empire was not as strong as the Iranian Empire at that time. This is a historical fact. Whatever excuses you make for this failure will not change this fact. And I remind you again that they were defeated when there was only one Iranian soldier against every four Roman soldiers.
after this battle Parthian master "Surenas" was also executed. It was ostensibly a rebellion against the king. In fact, however, his strong reputation and the king's doubts drove him to his death. In particular, the commander-in-chief of Rome, Krasus, and senior officers were executed at the will of Surenas, not the will of the king. King Parthia was furious about it. And I suspected it. Surenas had the power to stage a coup. Surenas was disappointed in the humanity of Krasus, and angry at the lack of self-determination. Disappointed that a man like Krasus was the commander-in-chief of Rome, he brutally executed Krasus when he saw his servility. But it was an act of disrespecting the king. After the victory, the king attempted to negotiate with Rome. (The lives of Krasus and his servants depended on the king and the Roman Republic.) But Surenas ordered the death penalty of Roman generals and officers. (Caissar captured and did not kill Bergingetorix and the gallian officers; he later executed them in Rome.) Surenas' dogma was a crime of treason that effectively ignored the military law. Later Caesar made an excuse to conquer the parthias. (Cancelled by Caesar's assassination) According to the librarian, Surenas and his clan were also brutally murdered... Surenas was an excellent general like Caesar, but he had no political sense at all.
In this battle, all the flags and signs of the Roman army, which were very valuable and prestigious and had never been in the hands of the enemy in any war, fell into the hands of the Iranian army.
What I appreciate about this is what ancient Roman society respected. Crassus was by far the richest man in the Republic, but the people still said, "yeah, but what have you actually accomplished?" Immense wealth alone wasn't enough to get true respect. Glory was earned through great achievement, not having lots of coin
Crassus actually defeated Spartacus' slave revolt, while Pompey captured few remaining after he had returned from Spain and getting full credit, so this is probably one of the reasons he decided to go against Parthians as an old man, but it was still impressive he had soo much money, he managed to fund entire army himself, only getting gallic cavalry from Caesar as a gift. He was adviced to use the Armenian highlands to enter Parthian territory but Crassus dismissed the idea, wanting to beat Parthians straight forward in 1 decisive victory
Pretty nice video & comments, thanks ! Three courteous criticisms though: 1) There is an over-insistence on the hot weather as the main cause of the roman defeat. 2) A key element of the Parthian army isn't mentioned: its logistics. Mounted archers were "refueling" arrows which were stored on camel's back, in background lines of the battle. 3) Crassus didn't die during the battle, as implied by the video. He first escaped to the very city of Carrhae, and later slayed during negotiations with with Parthian leaders.
We do not know how Crassus died. We know the version related by Plutarch and Josephus Flavius. But their sentiments were quite anti Roman, as one can understand from several comparisons, and they picked the most unseemly version. Crassus could have died in battle, nothing unusual
Согласен) погода одинаково действует на всех участников сражения... катафрактам, в их железе, точно не было легче... а то, что римляне на марше еще выбились из сил, ну так кто им виноват, что в военноначальниках у них, был недалекий и самовлюбленный Красс, который не мог в свое время и рабов Спартака одолеть ))
@@igoros54 Всадник в пустыне на лошади после короткого марша и пехотинец с барахлом на горбушке протопавший от Геллеспонта до Армении - это несколько разные состояния бойцов. При том, что римляне были привычны к жаркому климату, Италия страна не так чтоб холодная. Эх, пехота, сто километров прошла и ещё охота...
@@nicolafiliber3062 Nicola I really don't think you should bother with history because you clearly have no interest in it. Why don't you just make up what appeals to you because that is what you are doing here . There is a very detailed account of how Crassus died and it was well after the battle after he was forced to enter into negotiations with the Parthians. His son, Publius did die in the battle. The very title of this video, "Rome's Worst Military Disaster" shows how totally clueless this Aditu Laudis is. It was no where near Rome's worst military defeat, though it was a shocking defeat because the Parthian force was a lot smaller than the army Crassus led.
10,000 parthian defeated 40,000 roman with few losses . But carthage had 50,000 against 85,000 Thats more than half of the roman troops . Rome wasn't powerfull against real armies .
@@lcplapiata5501 Carthage was right under Rome's nose and Ctesiphon was one or two cities away from the eastern borders of Roman empire and there were like ten if not more Roman legions stationed there while the Parthians didn't even have a standing army Plus most of the times Rome sacked Ctesiphon when the Parthians or the Sassanids were at civil war in the east
Was it really Crassus and his Roman legions , that defeated Spartacus, i heard pompey & Caesar, were also involved in the defeat of Spartacus and his Army of starving people fighting against a very powerful Roman Legions , and 18 years after the killing of Spartacus,Crassus was killed by the parthians , with motlen gold into his throat, and Pompey's death was 5 years after Crassus ,he was beheaded in Egypt, and Cearsar betrayed by his own people he was butchered, i guess all dictators don't get to die in their sleep, but Spartacus will forever live in the words of good people who loved freedom,i guess out of the 4 off those guys Spartacus died for something he really believed in the name of freedom,!!! , Maybe I'm a bit wrong about history but if i am I would like to hear about if you don't mind, your videos are very good, James 🇮🇪 YNWA bro
Single battle loss for Rome I see as irrelevant, what matters are the consequences. Parthians won preserving their empire, as did the teutons beyond the Rhine. Those battles meant everything for them. Hannibal’s victory only got him a few years more to terrorize Italy before withdrawing.
Увы, но общий баланс в парфяно-римских войнах, явно не в пользу парфян. Римляне брали штурмом парфянскую столицу, а не наоборот. Парфяне-то и персами не были кстати.
Since the Parthian bows had only a limited range, an effective counter-strategy would have been to capitalise on this by deepening the Roman ranks.A skirmishing line-constantly -replenished- would have pushed the horsemen far enough away from the main body to render their arrows ineffective.
The only way you can defeat the parthians was with your own archer cavarlies that are stronger. In hand to hand rome was superior they would have destoryed parthia easily but they didn't do any research. To defeat an enemy with this tactic like the Mongols did you need your own army of cavalry archers simple or with the romans having long bow archers and equipment like catapults etc thats another way the rest is bs
I would think the Battle of Cannae, (August 216 bce) would be Romes Greatest loss. And The Battle of the Teutoburg Forest, as Romes greatest military disaster of course Carrhae was absolutely a disaster as well. But Cannae losses were between 50-70k depending on the source.
A very famous battle. Marc Antony had a go without much success but realised the need for a great many more archers in the army but even those he took with him was not enough. From then on we see the gradual increase in archers amongst the eastern Roman armies.
True and also it was much better to go through Armenia than go through the desert. Crassus was arrogant. If Caesar was not murdered he would went to war with Parthia together with Mark Anthony. They were preparing. I would've liked to see Caesar defeat those Parthians as he knew what was needed to defeat them.
In the few ocasions in which Ventidius crushed the Parthians archers were not relevant. Slingers shooting lead balls were crucial. And the part of this video that shows cataphracts galloping to attack the legions is pure delirium. First, cataphracts heavily laden with armour were not fit for more than a trot. Second, they were so slow that the legions could have killed them all as happened in Ventidius' victories if they risked at close quarters.
Why doesn't anyone talk about Cassius?? it was Crassus' lieutenant who advised him to retreat with the bulk of the army still intact but Crassus did not listen to him and took a path without shelter while Cassius retreated in order with his 2 or 3 legions.
Crassus was a land speculator and the richest man in Rome. He may have led the defeat of Spartacus, but this was not a difficult feat. He was a poor general who did not listen to his experienced officers, instead trusting the advice of a treacherous Parthian noble in his camp who advised him to pursue the Parthians into waterless terrain.
Crassus victory against Spartacus is mostly underrated. It wasn't an easy task but there was no glory in it. Let's say he understood basic Roman warfare but he was nowhere as good as Caesar. Speaking of whom, Crassus didn't have that many experienced officers because the experienced ones served under Caesar. Anyway, you don't need to be that experienced an officer to recognize that a desert is not an ideal place for a large army on foot. Further, it didn't help that he pissed off Rome's local allies who were supposed to support him. He also became more greedy (if that was even possible) and impatient with age. A victory over the Partians was his only and last chance for military glory. Since there was no casus belli and his adventure was privately financed, the Senate didn't do much to avenge Crassus. Many senators were glad he was gone for good. Because he built his fortune through Sulla's proscription lists, he wasn't too popular to begin with.
Sounds like retrospective arguments by historians to rationalize that romans met their match on the eastern borders. Ancient history is full of stab in the back myths. These ought to be percieved as rhetorical common places for rationalizing defeats and setbacks.
@Jose Vasquez how would they know then a territory that they still didn't conquer without depending on native people huh how smart the question you should ask is something different
Sure, and if he fell, he had no chance to get up to his feet. Those were interesting on horses, but they were nothing special. Romans were killing those with pickaxes.
Rome's worst military disaster is a pretty big statement. Considering the remoteness of Parthia from the city of Rome (and Rome's ability to quickly recover from defeat at this time), I'd probably rank Cannae, Teutoberg Forest, and Adrianople higher on the list.
The Battle of Arausio took place on 6 October 105 BC was the worst in terms of losses, Roman losses are described as being up to 80,000 troops as well as another 40,000 auxiliary troops 120,000 in total
@@mariojakel5544 This one flew under the radar for me and definitely deserves recognition, props for mentioning it. The Cimbrian War pretty much transformed Rome from a Republic into a pre-Empire
@@yiannimil1 I see what you’re saying, but that’s not really true. Trajan was one of several emperors that managed to invade Mesopotamia and sack Ctesiphon, but holding the Parthian/Sassanian Empire would’ve been too difficult. Even if Crassus wasn’t defeated, the East was too far away and ungovernable.
@@yiannimil1 Teutoberg Forest also stopped the Roman conquest of Germania and solidified the Rhine as the border between the empire and the Germanic tribes. Pretty big moment in Roman foreign policy
Surely Crassus miscalculated his enemy's offensive by one he had never seen before but let's not forget Marcus Crassus honored the Sacramento of Rome by not retreating, he died along with his sons and stayed true to the Roman Standard. 🦅 He was not only the Imperator Commander who decimated his men for breaking rank, but in the end he too never broke rank to flee the enemy. Truly honorable warrior. Had the parthians not used arrows to shoot down the legend, Marcus Crassus would've beat all of them in true high-class combat.
Rome lost more at Cannae, but the defeat at Carrhae was so awful and demoralizing. 43000 Roman’s lost to 10000 parthians. And most of those were archer cavalry. Crassus’ strategy of “waiting the storm of arrows out“ would’ve worked usually, except the Parthians brought thousands of camels loaded with arrows with them. Just going Toe to toe with the Parthians would’ve been better than that dumb hollow square
VERY cool. Love the tactical and troop animations in these videos. I'm a history buff anyway but that makes it even more interesting and understandable.
Since Romans eventually won against the Cartage it can't be the biggest defeat. Biggest defeat is the one against whom you can't win against, they never captured Iran so I think it's right to assume this is the biggest disaster.
Looks like a disaster in the making. Food, water, shelter, where are they? Reminds me a little of the 10,000 Greeks finding themselves in similar circumstances.
Great video! A crucial battle in human history that also helped set the stage for the birth of the Roman Empire. Your videos get better with each one created. Keep up the good work!!!
Best graphics l have seen to date. The narrator's script, however, was remarkably devoid of data. How big were these opposing armies? How many legions, how many enemy fighters, how many casualties,etc. No numbers whatsoever.
.Ten thousand Iranians against forty three thousand Romans, seven Roman legions were completely destroyed The casualties of the Parthians due to war tactics are less than 100 people
Carrhae,was a definition becouse,Crassus crushed in 70 a.d Riots of Spartacus,now he was killed with all his legions by partians in desert.His head was throwed in roman camp. Parthians gives him mealted gold for satisfaing his greeds.😮😮😮😮horror,horror,and cut Crassus head.
'Amateurs talk strategy, Professionals talk logistics'. No matter how skilled your troops are, without food, water and in desert heat they'll come apart at the seams when pressed. hard. Fighting a mounted enemy they rarely could catch, dealing with endless clouds of arrows when trying to advance and running out of supplies and especially water in blistering heat-the final straw was the killing of Publius who the Roman troops loved.
Caarhae was not Rome's worst military disaster. That was the Battle of Cannae in 216 BCE, at the hands of Hannibal's Carthaginians, when ten entire legions were killed, with around 50,000 to 60,000 dead. It remains, even after twenty two and a half centuries, one of the costliest single day's battle losses in all human history. The Roman defeat by the Goths at Adrianople in 378 CE was a disaster at least equal of Carrhae in terms of Romans killed - 20,000 to 30,000 - but the political significance was much greater with the Emperor himself being killed (Valens). And it set off the chain of events - incursions by barbarians - which led to the fall of the Western Roman Empire 98 years later.
Ассаламу-алейкум любители древ. истории.Современные персы должны не спекулировать победу парфиян как чисто персидскую победу.Парфиянская царство было создано248году до.н.эры,и это было чисто тюркская династия. (Не путац династия Ахаменидов и Сасанидов)Сурен это название не хайская(армянская)авоенно- аристократически титул в Парфянской царстве.Знаменитые кон.катафракты это прототип средневековых Европейские рыцари .Современные Персидские историки не очень то любят раследоват историю Парфии.И любят периписат как армяни историю Древ.Парфию. 🇦🇿🇰🇬🇰🇿🇹🇷🇹🇲☪️❤️❤️❤️
@@natiqismixanov Parthians are one of three main tribes of Iranian Aryans. Besides persians and medes. So don't try to trick yourself. Turks are some nomadic tribes came from central asia and north china duo to topple of great Sassanid Empire by islamic barbars.
Um Jerry, you do understand that nationality is a man made construct right? In reality we are all the same... Human beings. Nationality is no different than a minted coin or a wagon on horseback.
My guess would be the molten gold one because it fits better with how the Persians and their religion at that time would punish greed and found greedy acts despicable. So basically, if you take Persian culture into account at that time period, punishing someone who was well know for being the richest man in Rome, still going out of his way to seize more riches from a distant land, would definitively fit that punishment of greed. Another factor is that it is such a distinct punishment that it makes no sense if it did not happen, because it serves no purpose for the Romans themselves to make that up and the Parthians obviously don't need to make that up either cause if that is the story they wanted to go with, well they already decided how to kill him anyway, they could have just done it like that and did not need to make up a story.
This battle did so much beyond just its immediate impact (the casualties, Crassus’ and his son’s death, the loss of the imperial eagles). It led indirectly to the death of Julius Caesar because it was a Sybilline prophecy that only a king could defeat the Parthians (the Republicans drew conclusions when Caesar declared his intentions to defeat them and recover the eagles, and thus assassinated him). It led to an arguably greater Roman defeat at the hands of the Parthians during Anthony’s Atropatene Campaign. And it created a myth around the Parthians that extended beyond the death of Nero. Oh, the dominoes of history…
If you define battles not by their outcome in terms of victory/loss or casualties, but by political implications, The battle of Arausio river in 105 BC might be just as important or more so to the eventual fate of the Roman Republic. First, in terms of losses 80K legionnaires plus as many as 40K auxiliaries were killed. Politically, Rome panicked, and instituted Marius a single consul and renewed his term for an unprecedented 3 more consecutive terms. Marius and Sulla, imo, were the individuals who signaled the end of the republic; in addition, Marius was Caesar's uncle (adopted I think, since Marius was not of patrician origin), so if you wish to trace back political effects, they started long before Carrhae.
This was a proper response of Persian Empire by a General, Sorena, not even by the King of Kings of Persians. This was a small portion of Persian army that intended to stop advancing Romans till the main army of Iran with 100 k troops arrives in Armenia. This below 30 years old General finished them off and this victory caused a lot of jealousy against him and later on he got assassinated. Very tragic story for youngest General of Persian army that smashed the mighty enemies at borders. It was a response to what Alexander did and it was a proper and powerful message to Romans. The next major disaster caused to Romans by Shapour the First of House of Sassan, King of Kings of Iran and An-Iran.
The prolonged conflict between the Persian Empire and the Roman Empire, which spanned over 600 years, significantly weakened both superpowers. This period of incessant warfare drained their resources, destabilized their societies, and left both empires vulnerable to external threats. One of the most profound consequences of this mutual exhaustion was the rapid rise of Islam in the 7th century. Led by the Caliph Omar, the relatively modest and unsophisticated Arab forces were able to decisively defeat both the Persian and Roman armies. The once-mighty Persian Empire, in particular, fell swiftly, with its political and social structures collapsing under the weight of the Islamic conquests. The effects of this defeat are still felt today, as modern-day Persia (Iran) continues to grapple with the cultural, religious, and political legacy of this historic event.
The Parthian empire in Iran was one of the most powerful operators, which was able to defeat the Roman operator many times with its skill in wars, the best Parthian commander is Sardar Surena 🇮🇷❤️
I am a fanatical Iranian towards my country and my country's history. I read a lot of comments and realized that you still have that vain and arrogant pride of the Roman nose. Despite the numerous failures of my ancestors. I wanted to say that history has proven that the first emperors in history were the Iranians, and they taught this to the likes of the Greeks, Romans, Egyptians, and Chinese, and now the tired old students turned their heads in front of the professor. A hundred thousand Romans faced forty thousand Parthians and from the moment they arrived, they hid behind the shield like little girls, and the Parthians galloped around them with their horses and shot arrows, and wherever they ran out of arrows, they took arrows from the backs of the camels that had been prepared in advance, and within two They messed up the day. Fifty thousand dead, thirty thousand captives and twenty thousand fugitives who were hunted by wild animals without food or water
Carrhae was won by superior logistics and TECHNOLOGY (yes Iranian heavy cataphracts, bows and armor-piercing arrows were superior to European); the slave-crucifying Roman billionnaire Crassus had to die drinking molten gold. And YES, Carrhae was the most crushing Roman defeat ever, only 10,000 Iranians (!) massacred and demoralized 40,000 Romans (setup of Teutoburg was evenly matched, with German tribes relying on brute force). Parthians, Achaemenids, Scythian, Sassanids, Median, Safavids, .. all Iranian ("Persian") dynasties, all the very same great Iranian Empire that we Westerners still shamefully refuse to acknowledge, even today in 2023 AD. Where are the movies about the amazing Iranian Empire?? Iran, the origin of Human Rights and cultural and religious freedom, is an epic all-time titan of human civilization. Respect to Iran!! 💪
I’m mean the last time I checked small Greek states conquered the MIGHTY Persians and Rome invade Persian lands many times and besieged Cestiphon on numerous occasions. The Persian however never even close to Rome.
@@raysanele4538Tisophon, the capital of ancient Iran, was very close to the borders of the Roman Empire, but Rome was far away from the borders of ancient Iran. For this reason, the Roman Empire reached Tisophon several times throughout history, but never conquered all of Iran. In the wars between the two empires, sometimes the kings of Iran and sometimes the Roman Empire won.
From the battle in the teutoburger forest, you obviously have no idea. this is clear from your comment in this regard. i therefore come to the conclusion that everything you give here from you must be considered with great caution. historically knowledgeable you are obviously very little, rather ideologically oriented, so it seems to me.
The narrator keeps referring to the "Roman Empire", but this is not accurate. In 53 BCE Rome was still a Republic; the Empire came in 27 BCE, 26 years after the Battle of Carrhae.
Celebrate your great legacy by beating up a weak opponent (who have built empires for over a millenia). What did Sun-Tzu said about knowing yourself and knowing your enemy? What could possibly go wrong?
Surely this defeat is not a patch on Hannibal’s victory at Cannae? Far more Romans died in that battle, and from an army over twice the size that the one Crassus commanded at Carrhae.
The outcome of the battle of Carrhae was more significant. It wiped out the Roman leadership and left the entire Roman East in jeopardy. The death of Crassus created the conditions for civil war in Rome between Pompey and Caesar. Syria was basically illegally held by Cassius who commanded what remained of the stragglers. It is a breakdown in chain of command and real authority. At Cannae, Hannibal achieved a great slaughter that he never could capitalise on. It also united the Romans under a common strategy. Hence, the Parthian victory was truly a triumph that not only turned the tables of a Roman invasion but put Rome in a significant backfoot for years. I know you Westerners have the awful habit of discounting the triumphs of the ancient Iranians, but try objectivity now and then. There's a good book by G. C. Sampson on the topic where the ramifications of the battle is broken down. Not only Romans know how to fight effectively - Indeed there would come a time where Iranian-style armoured cavalry would supercede the Roman legion infantry. There's no greater flattery than imitation. The Romans had it in them to praise the Parthians for their warlike qualities, so there's no reason for you to be salty.
@@rashnuofthegoldenscales4512 No-one is being “salty”, nor am I demeaning the achievements of the Parthian Empire. Nir indeed the Achaemenids (who unlike the Doric Greeks, were an Indo-European Aryan people!), or the later Sassanids. Cataphracts would indeed transform the uses of cavalry on the battlefield, building on the Parthian model, although the kontos was a “one shot” weapon until the Goths invented stirrups. However, the damage at Carrhae was mainly achieved by light cavalry - the vast majority of the Parthian army were horse archers.
Yes It Was The Worst Military Disaster For The Legion Army Of The Roman Empire In The Middle Eastern Part Of Ancient Europe At The Battle Of Carrhae In 53 BCE.
But the Romans outlasted all the iranic empires, the Samartians, parthians and the Sassanids combined for many centuries. The Muhammadans sadly crushed the Persians very quickly. The Romans at least survived and even outlived the caliphate after outliving all the iranic empires. The parthians can keep their battle. History teaches us, it’s the legacy and the long run that counts and the romans had more of that than anyone else ever.
@@Khorshid-pj7jy Iran was invaded by the Arabs and later the mongols. Rome was continuously standing. Modern iran is not a continuum of the Persian empire , just a miniature replica. Like Italy is of Ancient Rome. No difference and nothing wrong with that.
yes modern Iran is persia and italy is ancient romans almost. but if you consider persian dynasties, they existed even until 50 years ago(Pahlavis)@@chilloutcentral2097
both rome and Persia and all other nations had made history and what we have today, our culture is still alive and i just want to say that they didn't die , maybe you didn't know details about our history but immediately after arabs invasion for more than decade diffrent cities resisted, lasted sassanids try to come back by help of china, an Iranian killed khalife , less than one century later, iraniran dynasties began to rise and rulled for thousands of years, Safavids,dilemmans, Al-Buyeh , samanids,.even in tabarestan(northern iran) never conquered by arabs , yes we have to accept our defeat but we did not give up completely
I think the other wise. Roman language is dead, Iranian language is spoken today. People in Iran celebrate their ancient tradition like Nowrouz and etc.. There's a country today named Iran (same as ancient times) and speaks farsi and it's people are in love with their ancient history and poetry and all. Romans latin language and it's traditions are dead. No one in turkey or Levant sees themselves as Romans, in the other hand people in Iran exactly see themselves as Darius.
@@chilloutcentral2097allow me to disagree. Iran remained a separate entity long after it's collapse by the Arabs and Mongols. It's geographic location, size and language remained relatively the same. Their national epic book shahnameh is 1000 years old. Italy in the other hand have just became a country in 1861. Iran's name was Iran 2000 years ago its on Sassanian coins, you can't compare that with anything. So I think today's Iran is the continuation of the ancient empire. (Even if you consider the conquest, modern Iran already controls Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Lebbonan.
Pro tip....if you find yourself a Triumivir of Rome....do NOT invade Parthia unless your full name is Gaius Julius Caesar. Then maybe you'll stand a chance.
@@AdituLaudisMMXXI Der IRAN wurde vom Kyrosch dem Großen 539 vor Christus gegründet. Schon Jahrhunderte vor dieser Zeit haben die Menschen, die auf dem Iran ischen Hochland lebten, ihre Heimet das Land der Arier genannt. Seit der Gründung heißt unser Land IRAN. Jetzt tauchst du Kakarlake auf und nennst IRAN Parthian. Du Stück Scheiße .... ein Land ändert seinen Namen nicht mit der Herrscher-Dynastie. Die Dynastie hieß Parther und nicht das Iranische Imperium.
They simply had no clue about Parthian tactics. All cavalry army, bows and arrows, not hand in hand combat at all. Parthians never changed that. It was Roman army who transformed with time. Romans beaten Parthians many times in following years but they had not enough power to conquer and hold their territory.
Actually the battles they had after this were more or less even, this wasn't the only time Parthia beat Rome in battle. Also, I don't know what video you were watching, but on several occasions there were direct hand to hand combat between Parthian Cataphracts and either Roman cav or legions. The horse archers were supplementary to this.
@@abdul-hadidadkhah1459 cataphracts were in sharp minority with only action to break through infantry lines. They weren't knights. Romans killed their horses in bellies and those horsemen became rather vulnerable.
@@МаксРогозин-е1ю They were better than knights. And more numerous. Up to 10 thousand heavy cavalrymen Parthia could furnish. It is a formidable body of cavalry
