Why Could Rome NEVER Conquer Persia? 

Azerbaijan (with the Turks) and Iran(with the Russians): Fighting over Armenia

Armenia is the gorgeous boy of caucuses

@@ajzmn3538 Russia "fighting" over Armenia so hard that Armenia decided to seek closer ties with NATO 😆

@@REAPERthePRUSKIE Armenia is a lady so beautiful others just cannot stop trying to take it for themselves.

@@BlazingFlame69Yeah Persia had em but after qajar dynasty our country's waifu was lost to the Russians ☹️

If only the Romans had a stable line of Succession.

That is too far fetched ngl. They both had different religion, culture and heritage. One of them had to take the culture and religion of the other to make the union plausible

@@BlazingFlame69 Yes but Iran was in the process of Christinisation and had a significant and rising Christian minority like everywhere else there at that time. It is forseeable that they would'e been a Christian majority in a century or more had the Arabs not invaded and Islamized Iran since the old Zoroastrian order was becoming disilutioned like pagan Egypt or Rome.

I did this in Crusader Kings 3 Fallen Eagle. Shit was dope

They actually did or at least tried of. Khosrow II married daughter of Emperor Maurice... ...and it led to (or at least didn't prevent) the catastrophic war of 602-628 that basically destroyed both empires. There was also strange episode with Khosrow I Anushirawan when Emperor Justin almost ceremonially adopted him... but his nephew Justinian the Great and his advisors intervened. Result? Khosrow hated Justinian guts for the rest of his life. To be fair the last episode considered a simple diplomatical favor by the majority of historians. However I read a few who actually sees this as an genuine attempt to create some kind of Sassanian-Byzantine confederation.

The issue is that winning battles doesn't mean winning wars and while both sides won battles against each other , neither could decisively conquer each other . Even if Rome did conquer Persia , it is unlikely that they could have held onto it for very long and they probably would be overthrown in less than a century given they would have been massively overstretched by that point .

@@lionandwolfboy8714 exactly what am saying brother

​@@ladahieno2382I know , I was just adding my input .

@@lionandwolfboy8714 you are most welcome friend!

I’d say it is slightly less unrealistic than Persia conquering Rome. Persia had very weak naval power even in the Indian Ocean compared to Rome (hence the failure to interdict Roman trad ein the Red and Indian Ocenas), in contrast to Rome’s dominance of the Med. Moreover the Romans conquered the Parthian and Sassanid capitols quite a few times while the Parthians only ever came close to doing that once with Constantinople. But solidifying control over the place and warding off possible threats from the mountain highlands and the steppes is another issue.

Me too, unfortunately not many people no that name and the war in general

@@goattier7728 We history buffs know the war well we just have to start popularising the name, tho Im still gona call the the Twilight War as to me antiquity ends with the Byzantines destroying Gothic Italy.

someone covered this, William would have defeated Harold Godwinson. Norman Conquest was likely inevitable.

@@BlazingFlame69 Why would that happen?

Ayval… this is the truth

As you correctly say the parthian empire was not a direct continuation of the Seleucid greek colonial empire but rather a native persian empire that even arose out of a nativist desire to topple greek colonial rule and bring back the glory of the former Archaemenid empire. Yet again in a sense the parthian empire was still an indoeuropean empire and probably even more so than both the archaemenid and the sassanian empire, whose rulers came from Persis (Fars). Since the parthians were actually not persians but a tribe of the Scythians from the north. So not such a huge difference between being ruled by greeks ot scythians in both cases you are ruled by europeans not self rule. Only difference is probably that the parthians much like the Alans were still a branch of persian speaking peoples probably a little closer to their culture than greeks...

@@zabooza74 Absolutely wrong!!! The Parthian were not a European rule over the Iranians, they were Iranian themselves, and of course a new and evolved branch of the Scythians as well. But the question that arises here is, what tribe are the Scythians themselves? They were also an Iranian people. Of course, some branches of them migrated to Europe and modern Russia, but they were ethnically Iranian. The Scythians were Iranian tribes, from the nomadic Aryan people, who geographically reached from the north to the southern plains of Siberia, from the south to the Caspian Sea to Central Asia, from the east to the Sinkian region to China, and from the west to the Danube River. The Scythians were Iranian both racially and linguistically, and they themselves were divided into different tribes such as Scythians, Dahe, Massagets, Amirgians, and even new and evolved tribes wich the Parthians and Sarmatians were one of theme.I don't want to make fun of anything, but your comment was one of the weirdest I've ever seen.

@@CyrusPersia-wv7zo Actually not the Scythians were closer to the Huns there is lots of scholarship on this apart from weird iranian supremacist circles...

@@zabooza74 I have no idea on this matter, as there are many branches of the Scythians, each forming new groups in their own way, such as the mixture of Scythians and Slavic peoples in Russia, which led to a specific group in the Russian region i guess. There are many theories about their branches, but regarding the Scythians themselves as ethnically, what is confirmed by all is that they were Eastern Iranic pple. The Scythians I referred to were evolved Iranians and are considered part of Iran's history, including the Parthians. So no, the rule of the Parthians has nothing to do with the Europeans, and it was an Iranian rule, a very clear and confirmed thing.

If think it’s still something like 1.8x

That was because it was. Rome ruled most of Western Europe and the Mediterranean. At its height, something like 25% or more of the world population lived and died in its borders. Only China was as massive. Parthia was mostly just Iran and Iraq today and had a fraction of the population.

@@volbound1700 You talk about Iran as if it's small. Do you realize it is larger then France, Spain and Italy combined?

​@@ustedesustedthe Parthian and Sassanid empires were huge. Near 800,000 sq mi

Yes that map may be based on the Mercator projection, it's completely flawed, Europe in its entirety is barely the size of South Asia

Kings and Generals has a playlist about Alexanders conquests and the wars of the Diodoci. Armenia was prity irrlevent.

After the fall of the republic Rome wasnt centralized arround a city as the Roman Senate didnt rule anymore and the Imperātōr would be where the main army is. It was actually the bigest problem in Rome that they had no laws of sucession since Augustus didnt want to admit that he was king and the republic was gone, had the romans adopted a system of the emporor adopting an heir eliminating most civil wars the Empire might have never fallen and history would have been soo different.

Thanks for the praise and the feedback. I think I'll try the same style but with slower visual pacing, and simplified text for starters.

Hi I'm persian myself and love history

I don't see why they would be upset? Rome was a far stronger power than Macedon and yet couldn't conquer Persia as Alexander had done. Giving credence to the fact that the Parthian Empire was stronger than its predecessors.

Knock Knock

Why you are so upset what we did to you it was romans who came to our gates not us

@@robertalaverdov8147 I think it was more about desire with Rome. In the Parthian era, the region was just not that valuable. By the Sassanid area when it was organized, Rome was likely too weak to achieve the conquest. There were a few attempts: Trajan, Caracella, and Julian. However, even with those attempts, they seem half baked.

I am sure that even if Alexander was in that period with his entire army, and if he had faced Surena with his 10,000 Parthian archers, the same fate as Crassus would have awaited him. The Parthians’ military tactic was a guerrilla tactic (meaning attritional warfare). With this tactic, the Parthians and Persians could fight for hours with a small number of troops and ultimately emerge victorious!!

@@faraz8135 The early Achaemenids, half of the Parthians and most of the Sassanids knew how to use their battle tactics and actual strategies

@@ramtin5152 میدونم داداش، من از اهمیت تاکتیک پارتیزانی گفتم، منظورم این نبود که تاکتیک هخامنشیان کارآمد نبود!!

Cataphractaire grivpanwar

@@baltulielkungsgunarsmiezis9714 who cares.

@@jacobjonm0511 Historys Influence asked.

Geneticamente, anche, in parte. Ma culturalmente siamo Latini, Romani. La nostra lingua, la nostra religione, le nostre usanze sono molto, ma molto più latine che germaniche anche qui nel Nord Italia.

cope

Europe is conquering itself using immigration as a weapon. They've given the world (except Russians) a greenlight through inaction. I don't think it's their fault, I would too if I didn't live in the US.

While I see that, Alexander the Great (with less resources) took the East despite the logistical strain. I think it was more desire, Rome just didn't care. By the Sassanid time, though, Persia could have held off Rome.

They couldn't pull an invasion on India. Alexander retreated from India after failed campaign, Hun were driven out from India,India survived against the Arab Caliphate campaigns for 500yrs(which Rome & Persia couldn't survive)

@@akhripasta2670 India wasn't a nation, but rather a collection of nations or entire region. The Arabs did successfully conquer most of India with the Mughals later. Alexander didn't necessarily get beat, his men wanted to go home. His successors preferred to negotiate with the rising Mauryan Empire which was a powerful Indian state that emerged after Alexander's death.

@volbound1700 The video on this topic is during the Gupta Empire and it's vassal Vakataka also known as Gupta Vakataka age🥴 "His successor negotiated"😂 Alexander's successor lost & had to secede Gandhara & Gedrosia

@@akhripasta2670 They definitely didn't win in battle but his successors were also fighting other successors. Seleucus I (who negotiated) had to also fight Antigonas in the West and it was seen as more important of a fight than some frontier provinces. India was always seen as remote and less important than the core of Alexander's Empire in the Middle East. Not to take anything away from the Mauryans. Seleucus got over 300 War Elephants from Mauryans to win the Battle of Ipsus in Turkey over Antigonas and founded the Seleucid Empire.

@@cubbelicommando And the Persian hater Turk with 1,000 fake accounts appears again 🤣

@@cubbelicommando Pre islamic Iranian empires (except Medians) had several capitals around the empire The Parthians had 7 different capitals with 4 or 5 of them being beyond Zagros mountains and outside Mesopotamia The sack of Ctesiphon barely even mattered to them The capital that was sacked was one or two cities away from the eastern borders of Rome It was sacked whenever there wasn't any army there or the empire was in civil war or during the reign of a weak king such as Osroes I (a usurper) Look at the states of the Parthians and the Sassanid when Trajan and Carus attacked Their empire was literally divided in two with the western parts of it being seized by a usurper king called Osroes I (same guy who provoked Trajan to attack) and the east was taken by a Kushan king while the Shahanshah wasn't present during Carus invasion

@@cubbelicommando The Turkish keyboard warrior hater with 1,000 fake accounts appears again 🤣

@@cubbelicommando Take a look at where Parthia was and then take a look at how far Italy is Actually they did come near Greece right before Ventidius campaigns

@@cubbelicommando Be a man instead of hiding behind fake accounts 😂 Everyone knows it's you Papaz 😂 No matter how many fake accounts you are using 😂 The way you comment gives you away for everyone 😂

When both were weakened and pass their primes LOL

@@ramtin5152 nah they were at their prime

@@sowonkun Just because they had more soldiers, doesn't mean that they were at their prime LOL Plus modern estimates don't agree with muslim sources over the numbers of Roman and Sassanid armies XD Compare them with their actual prime like during the reigns of Shapur II, Khosrow Anushiravan, Justinian I and Maurice Both empires were weakened by the time arabs started attacking

@@ramtin5152 they were stable and experienced at wars, yet they failed in 6 years

@@sowonkun That line alone proved me that you either didn't read anything about them or don't want to know about them LOL They were anything but stable XD Plus both sides had lost their experienced soldiers and commanders during their last war LOL

in fact, they wanted, but couldn't. They tried many times, but they didn't succeed. Some clear examples are the campaigns of Crassus, Caracalla, Severus Alexander and Julian. Conquering Iran has been the dream of every empire in history, because it is located in an important geopolitical region that connects Europe and Asia, and because of its natural resources and fertile lands for agriculture, as well as the wealth of the Sassanid and Parthian empires. What empire would not want to conquer such a jewel?

@@faraz8135 After Augustus, (the first Roman emperor) set our what he intended as Rome's natural borders, all following Emperors were heavily influence by that. So that's why. Also Constantinople is where Europe connects with Asia, and the Roman's had it, they even made it their capital.

@@OrtonThimsbury So what was the reason for the numerous Roman campaigns in Mesopotamia and the conquest of Ctesiphon? If, as you say, the Romans were satisfied after establishing the borders of Rome and a specific border was agreed upon, then why did Trajan, even if only for a short period, refer to Mesopotamia as a new province of Rome? There is no doubt that if there had been the ability to advance further, it wouldn't have been far-fetched for them to conquer Iran as well, even though the campaigns of Alexander, Caracalla, and Julian came after Augustus and the idea you mentioned. Thus, the idea of conquering Iran and expanding eastward still existed for the Romans, which is a logical action for any empire. Also, geopolitically, Iran is located on the Silk Road, and we know that the Romans had a great need for Indian and Chinese goods, and these goods had to pass through Iran first to reach Rome. Apart from this, Iran itself had plenty of produce, both agriculturally and in spices, and most importantly, it was a constant threat to the eastern frontiers of the Roman Empire. Despite all this, do you still think that Rome never had the thought and dream of conquering Iran and never try for it?

@@faraz8135 I'm not saying they never had the thought or dream of it. Trajan attacked because the Parthians got into a war with their eastern neighbor, and because roman society had recently been accepting of his addition of Dacia, which ended the post Augustus period of no additions other than Britain (Which Caesar had already been to to set up a precedent) I think if Trajan's intended general heir had been the next emperor they would have sought to take more from the Parthians. But Hadrian had no intention to do so. I can't recall when the next attempts at expansion into Parthian territory was but I acknowledge there was a point where the Parthians caused really big concern to the Romans, but that was not when the Romans were at their peak around Trajan's times. I think Augustus had about 50 legions at the end of his civil war, he disbanded all but 28. Going by those numbers I don't think Parthia had much of a chance. Even if they were possibly the ones who would have put up the biggest fight. I can't remember all the names of the leaders from back then, I remember a Parthian army had a successful campaign against the eastern provinces of Rome and were attacked by the leader of an oasis town on the way back, a smart leader who's wife went on to take Egypt from the Romans before being defeated by Aurelion. Anyway, in that Period Rome couldn't take lands off Parthia, if they weren't Sassanids by then, I can't recall it's been awhile. TLDR: It seems like Parthia was Rome's most powerful neighbor but at the same time I think if Augustus let his 50 legions, or even his 28 legions do their terminus thing it would have been like Eren's rumbling for the rest of the world, even China.

@@OrtonThimsbury exactly👍 I said the same thing you just mentioned, no law can remain.Trajan ended Augustus' border policy, and then Hadrian reinstated it. In Roman governance, such implementation and revocation of laws occurred frequently. For example, laws and rights for Christians and Jews of the Empire. We know that during Valerian's reign, many Christians were captured, and Christianity was severely restricted in Rome. However, a few years later, during the time of Constantine the great, not only were more rights given to Christian residents, but this religion also became the official faith of the Empire. For this reason, such laws should not be taken seriously or considered eternal. In a period when the Romans believed that advancing into their eastern borders was possible, they pursued it, like during the era of Severus Alexander, which was at the beginning of the Sassanid rule. Alexander believed he could end this empire at its inception, but at other times, for various reasons when military campaigns or conquests were impossible for them, they enacted such laws.

The short answer is that there were no Persia to conquer.

@@someonefromdesert LOL funny comment 😂 maybe not knowing it in terms of "Persia" necessary in the West, but as Parthia, So yes, Persia, Parthia, or the Medes as a model of Iran (Persia) were here clown!!

Sure the Parthians had nomadic style cavalry units But the majority of their army was still infantry, mainly used for the defense of cities unlike a completely nomadic army from the steppes which was entirely mounted and had multiple spare horses for each warrior and so many horses could only be sustained or acquired on those large steppes and not on the Iranian heartland, this is a normal transition for every nomadic army by the way, once they abandon those steppe's they can no longer maintain massive cavalry armies as they used to unless they control both the steppes and the conquered lands like the Mongols did, the Mongol empire could still field like 500 000 nomadic cavalry by simply controlling the entire Eurasian steppe, However the amount of auxiliary infantry they could muster considering the Chinese, Persian and other non nomadic populations they ruled over, would be 2 million auxiliary infantry theoretically

@@aburoach9268 As far as I know, the infantry in the Iranian army in post-Achaemenid period emerged during the Sassanid era, under the reign of Shapur II. Before that, the soldiers were on horseback, and Roman historians have mentioned the tactical changes and the new arrival of the Sasanian infantry during Shapur II's reign, who like the Roman legionaries had rectangular shields and fought on foot. But before that, the soldiers were cavalry whether horse archers or cataphracts.

Correct ! That is why i hate youtube lately...So much misinformation in the air, i am honestly going to stop using youtube for information and only gonna use it for music and some stuff. Going back to books

So you are telling me that Crassus, Antony, Trajan, Caracalla, Carus, Julian and etc. weren't serious? All of these men were just bored and decided to attack Iranians?

@artinrahideh1229 no they weren't. They did not use the full power of the empire because that power was needed to hold down other borders. They were over extended. Read what is said.

@@ADobbin1 problem is people are not very inteligent to wrap their minds around that concept...that certain system would not use its power to spread itself further but rather use its power to consolidate...

@@ADobbin1 nobody used their whole power? You ALWAYS have to maintain garrisons in borders to protect you from any internal or external threat! What you say makes no sense specially when we consider that they never needed their whole strength except some wars

They would still have lost to the arabs, but not as badly as our timeline

​@@Al-Timur Would they? If they won that early I doubt they would collapse into decades of succession crises that led to the Arab Conquest, Though Khosrau the 2nd was not popular by the Nobility, Its questionable if they would really kill him when he had several armies.

​@@awestruckcardboard3431The arabs still had superior generals and tactics and the war was extremely draining on both empires. The siege on Constantinople was a hail Mary in hopes of getting Heraculis to stop campaigning in side their empire. Taking the city doesn't mean the Persians instantly recover all the destroyed armies they lost throughout the war and if anything they would have to spread themselves thin to garrison all the new territory.

@@MegaTang1234 They would still have armies on the field, Not attacking each other and not spent in a Civil War hypothetically, The only real threats after a Byzantine Conquest would be the Turks on their north, And their enternal situation of ruling over peoples of Anatolia and Egypt. Which they would have to deal with but I am certain they will be able to put down. They would then have several years of peace before the Arabs attack. I personally believe that because of the Byzantine-Sassanid War it enabled for the Arab Conquest, In this timeline the Persians would not have been spent, And would have experienced Generals on the field (if they would live that long), Examples of the Battle of al-Qādisiyyah suggest that the Persians were equal in tactics with the Arabs and only fell due to hearings of Muslim reinforcements and the death of their Commander. Tactics of horsemen (And obviously others) such as feigned retreats would be expected by these Sassanid Generals that did not spend years of infighting. (Though I do think the Arabs would give the Persians their run for the Money.) The only gripe is that of Khalid Ibn Walid. And I personally belive he will be able to constantly give Persia defeats before he either wins the conquest and or dies.

@@MegaTang1234The Sassanids had only taken minimal damage compared to the Romans when the siege of Constantinople begins, Heraclius loses his support and finances if the city Falls and hadn’t yet began his Mesopotamian campaign so Khosrow would still have the legitimacy needed after taking New Rome to Win without exhaustion.

Alexander the great is sometimes called the last Achamenid because his civilian administration of the Empire relying on colaborators incorperated so much persian way of doing things, it was only the army which remained solidly macedonian having a phalangist core rather than a cavlarly one.

Lol😂

true, same thought process i had when choosing to do it lol

Because the internal problems of the Roman empire did not allow them to have a successful campaign to Persia, and of course the Parthian and Sassanid military and tactics were much more successful compared to the Achaemenids. One of the important tactics that played a key role was guerrilla warfare, which means a battle of attrition. With this tactic, the Persians could succeed even with a third of the Roman army. Also, an interesting point about the Hellenistic period that you may not know. We know this period as Hellenism, but the period of Hellenism itself was a cultural evolution between Hellenic culture and other cultures, which caused several forms of Hellenism to develop in every corner of the empire. For example, Seleucid Hellenism was different from Hellenism in Egypt. Many historians believe that the term "Hellenism" has a universal meaning and is not only related to Greek cylture. Ms. Amélie Kuhrt and Dr. Susan Sherwin White have written a book called "From Samarkhand to Sardis" which is related to the Seleucid period, and this book is known by other researchers as "a new vision of the Seleucid Empire". In this book, they had tried to place the Seleucid kingdom in the zone of ​​Asia and the East, and many of the sources they have shown are from Mesopotamia and Iranic itself, which shows that not all sources are in Greek. And it is possible to have a different view from the first Seleucus to the last king of the Seleucids, Antiochus VIII, who are rulers who speak Greek, but at the same time have an Iranian and Mesopotamian tradition. We should not have the wrong view that this is a cultural invasion by the Greeks or Iranians, but rather a cultural evolution took place between them. I recommend that book to you

they weren't hellenized

so called persia was occupied by Central Asian nomads, as it kept happening again and again in history. so there were persia at that time.

@@someonefromdesert If by "central nomads" you mean the Seljuks, Mongols and Timurids, you are right, but if you mean the nomad such as Parthians, Safavids, and Afsharians, you are wrong!!

@@CyrusPersia-wv7zo Why are turks claiming afsharian?? it sounds nothing like turkic names

Now tell me how evil I am.😅

Alexander was Greek, here is about the Romans. Although even Alexander and his successors did not manage to keep all of Iran after his conquest!!!

@@CyrusPersia-wv7zo I know, it's a joke. There was never another Alexander. He was lightning is a bottle.

The exaggeration of the importance of the conquest of the city of Ctesiphon was only a type of Roman propaganda. In fact, the Persians and Parthians did not have only one capital, but Ctesiphon was the closest to the Roman border. As important as the conquest of this city by the Romans was, the Persians also conquered the city of Antioch many times, with the difference that they did not use propaganda like the Romans did. However, in practice, it had the same meaning for the Romans as the conquest of Ctesiphon had for the Persians. Without considering issues such as the capture of Roman flags by the Parthians, the capture of the Roman emperor by the Sassanids, the deaths of Roman emperors such as Gordianus and Julian, the conquests of the city of Antioch, and the payment of tributes to the Persians in different periods, imagine if the Persians had also engaged in propaganda as the Romans did. What do you think would have happened?

@@faraz8135 what an insane cope, Ctesiphon was literally their capital since the emergence of the parthian empire and remained so for 800 years till the Arabs wiped it out. When the Arabs conquered ctesiphon, zoroastrianism literally went to a small minority still salty about Christianity and Islam. It's not an exaggeration that ctesiphon was not only the capital but also the seat of many Persian Empires. The reason they kept running away from ctesiphon and kept another capital near India was because the Persians kept losing and attacked whenever Rome faced a crisis or a civil war, Antioch was not even a Roman capital but only the capital of Syria palestina where the governer usually resided. The proof of victory for Rome is that Rome captured Ctesiphon multiple times but the Persians could never capture Constantinople nor Rome even once. Christianity still survives and rules the world while zoroastrianism is wallowing at the fringes that is the proof that Rome won.

@@sangumlinggi8330 Brah!!! your comments are lacking in logic. When you don't have information about the Persian imperial system, why do you comment on it? The existence of several capitals has nothing to do with your illogical claim. The Persians, Parthians, and even the Medes always had multiple capitals. For example, during the Achaemenid period, the Persian capitals were Ecbatana, Persepolis, Babylon, and Susa. During the Parthian period, they were Ctesiphon, Seleucia, and Susa. During the Sassanian period, they were Ctesiphon, Estakhr, and Bishapur. According to their tradition, Iranian kings had several capitals in different seasons and moved between them. Antioch was also part of the eastern province capitals of the Roman Empire and was an important city for them, just as Ctesiphon was for the Persians. And how do you expect the Persians to conquer Rome when Rome is kilometers away from the borders of Persia, while Ctesiphon is no fare of the neighboring of the Roman Empire? Have you ever seen a geographical map? Do you even know where Ctesiphon and Rome are located? Think a little logically boy!!! It is also true that the Romans always had many internal problems, and civil wars. However, the Persians could defeat them at any point and didn’t necessarily need to wait for their internal issues. In many cases, the Persians were even one of the reasons for Rome's civil wars and instability, such as the events that occurred after the battles of Carrhae, Edessa, and Mark Antony's campaign following their defeat. + We can clearly see the victories of the Persians and Parthians even during periods of internal order and stability in Rome, including times when Iran was embroiled in civil war but still managed to defeat the Romans. An great example is the last Parthian king, Artabanus V, who was defeated by Ardashir of Sassanid, but before that, he managed to defeat the Romans one for last time in the Parthians period. Com out of your fantasy bro!!! My last point about your comment about Zoroastrianism. Zoroastrianism still exists, in small numbers but still alive. And its influence can be seen in the modern world, even in Christianity itself. Many Christian traditions have Zoroastrian and Mithraic roots, both of these are Iranian religions. Additionally, for your general information, Christianity did not originate in Rome and is not a Roman religion.

I'd love to do an Alexander the Great timeline in the future. I may not be Greek myself but I share your interest on the topic haha.

If it was the case, the Macedonians were undoubtedly defeated by the Romans, just as they were later defeated by the Parthians during the Seleucid period. Only the Parthians and the Sassanids could face the great Roman power, not even Alexander could stand against Rome.

Issue with Macedon is that they were their own worse enemies. If you don't have the Diadochii wars, they might have survived. Even up until Rome's fall, they were fighting themselves (Rome had a similar issue).

👌👌

who is telling you this crap lmao. Rome was a copy of the Hellenic world.

​@@KrypteiaXi That makes it a Level-2 copy of the Iranians.

@@parjanyashukla176 Iran was a copy of the Akkadians.

We wuz...

@@Alex-tx2em Iran was the same country as Northern India till 1,000 BCE.

Alexander conquered it in 10 years….. Rome was always in constant civil war, + Persia only got to Constantinople and failed the siege, while Rome sacked Persias capital Cstephion 5 times, and won 11 wars, while Persia won 8….. Don’t forget Heraclius stomped Perisa SO hard defeating 4 different Perisan armies while being surrounded IN Persia…. Left them so weak after the war that Perisa was completely islamified by the Arabs in the 7th century, while Rome went on until 1453, Rome still exists as a city too, and is undoubtedly one of the reasons for the Wests supremacy over the world.

I dont understand your second sentence. Greece and Anatolia WERE conquered. The Romans actually even fought with the Greeks while at the same team dealing with Hannibal.

@@pantheon3671 Rome was usually in civil war when an emperor died, the strongest general took over beating the rest. Perisa took Anatolia for a little and then lost when they reached Constantinople. Rome while in civil war, and foreign wars still endured and sacked Perisas capital 5 times and its religious one…… not to mention Rome won 11 wars, and Persia 8.

@@pantheon3671 I'm saying that Anatolia and Greece are wealthy and rich land that is developed and could support their supply lines. Need food? There's Egypt.

@@Vntihero That's assuming the Persians also didn't have problems of their own, when they also fought others from their East. Also, they also had civil wars of their own, from Achaemenid to Parthian to Sassanid. It wasn't particularly peaceful in transitions.

It was oders come after persian there

@@Amen6magi there were some people before our persian ancestors like kasi people or burnt city of ilamian and ... there descendants still present in our lands .the word aria dosent mean the group of people that came from north it mean noble , and best of people. the land always was called home of aria or arianna-vaejeh(home of aria) as it is written in survived letters before savage ARABIC conquest.

How will the Romans even do that?

@@benetgamingchanel4055 if the Trojans went the other way and just kept on going or something lmao

They would have enjoyed anime and became weebs lol.

I know this is fiction but at least keep it a bit realistic

@@MsMommyMemer The Chinese might rather call Wa Dongdaqin (East Great Qin) then lmao

Up until Byzantine era, Rome was significantly stronger than Persia. Pre-Byzantine era, the only chances they would have had is during the crisis of the 3rd Century but Palmyra waxed them.