Why couldn't Romans pulled another "Alexander" conquest agaisnt Persia? They clearly have more manpowers and golds than Greek city states.
Why couldn't Romans pulled another "Alexander" conquest agaisnt Persia?
Why couldn't Romans pulled another "Alexander" conquest agaisnt Persia? They clearly have more manpowers and golds than Greek city states.
The "Persia" that Rome faced have learned their lesson from the Greek Invasion plus learned of cavalry warfare from the Parthian steppeBlack folk, which was simply too OP for the region.
Also Rome had too much on its plate and has already expanded quite too much. So the best it could do is sack capitals then go home
Also the Persians knew Rome would conquer them if given the opportunity. I bet they were surprised when Alexander came balling in and destroyed their empire.
Alexander didnt destroy the Persian empire, he usurped it. He just became the next Persian emperor. The diadochi destroyed it
>learned of cavalry warfare from the Parthian steppeBlack folk
You are moronic. Preference for mounted troops on horseback was already the main focus of the Achaemenid military since the late 5th century, you brainlet.
>The "Persia" that Rome faced have learned their lesson from the Greek Invasion plus learned of cavalry warfare from the Parthian steppeBlack folk, which was simply too OP for the region.
Early Persian cataphracts are categorically documented in Greek records, and this is what, almost 600 years before the Sassanian Persians? Don't think the Parthians had anything to do with this.
Achaemenid cataphracts were significantly less armored than Parthian or Sassanid cataphracts, and they were only transitioning to using lances when Alexander invaded.
They were still generally better than Macedonian cavalry though. It's actually the unit type that had the most success in battles such as Gaugamela.
It doesn't change the fact that the latter Achaemenid period had the Persians focusing more on horsemen and mounted heavily armored cavalry over traditional focus of infantry and archers. The tangent was someone claiming the Parthians brought the concept of cataphracts to the Persians and it isn't true.
>There are technological differences between eras several hundred years apart
You absolute donkey brain
>Early Persian cataphracts are categorically documented in Greek records
Achaemenid Cataphracts like this? Lol. Also having Cataphracts =/= SteppeBlack person Tactics. The Achaemenids relied greatly on their professional infantry dominated armies, with the cavalry serving as an elite supporting arm.
The Parthian and the Sassanid Armies on the other hand were dominated by vast mounted forces where the cavalry was the main arm of the army, with the infantry only showing up in siege battles.
>Greek sources mention Persian horsemen being heavily armored, the front and fore of the horse's flanks, heavily scaled armor with early evidence of chain-mail becoming uniformed.
Yes, exactly like that. You want to ignore other sources from the Greeks talking about Persian cavalrymen being so heavily armored they had to be pulled off their horses by multiple Greeks and required MANY stabs between the neck, armpits, and thighs to be killed because of how strong the armor was?
Rome still lost.
>outlasted the Persian by nearly a millennium
>lost
Read again, blockhead.
Thing is it wasn't the Greek city states doing the conquering, they were getting conquered by the Macedonians.
yep. Greek kingdom != city states.
They wouldn't be able to control the area. Rome managed to control the areas close to the sea, as it was easier for them to transfer goods, armies and keep in touch. Going to the east would result to huge cost and wans't worth the risk.
Are there any different things on what Arab does that they manage to conquer Persia? Would Rome could do the similar things like the Arab?
I mean, Alexander sure conquered a lot but his empire didn't last long.
If the Romans had conquered all of Persia they would lose it not long after. They were having trouble managing their current empire (which caused the split since two emperors could manage better than one), so adding all of Persia wouldn't have been feasible.
Also other people here are discussing manpower and terrain and all that, so I doubt such a conquest could be pulled off at all.
>I mean, Alexander sure conquered a lot but his empire didn't last long.
United empire yes, but the diadochi controlled most of it for at least 170 years
The Seleucids alone lost total control of their own partitioned territory within a few decades of the Parthian revolt. That is factually false.
> The Seleucids alone lost total control of their own partitioned territory within a few decades of the Parthian revolt. That is factually false.
Are you moronic?
The Battle of Ecbatana happened over 100 years after the initial Seleucid Parthian conflicts, which, need I remind you, the first two of which the Seleucids won, hell they roflstomped the Parthians the first time.
>Seleucids
VGH
What's the evidence that Galatians mercenaries ever wore helmets like in that pic?
Alexander's conquered what he had because the Phalanx was a new military structure that no one could figure out how to defeat at the time. The Parthians of Rome's time arose from the ashes of a Macedonian successor state, the Seleukid empire and thus their military structure developed from what the Greeks originally brought with them.
>Alexander sure conquered a lot but his empire didn't last long.
Only because he died too young. The successor states outlived him by centuries.
The Seleukids were around for over 200 years.
The Indo-greek kingdom lasted until 10AD.
it doesn't matter how many times rome burns down ctesiphon when the persians can just retreat past the zagros mountains and wait for the next barbarian invasion/civil war/moronic emperor
Alexander was becoming the Persian emperor. The Romans/Palmyrans did try to do this on some occasions but in the case of Cleopatra/Marc Antony and Zenobia, Augustus and Aurelian decided that would create a center of power outside the center of power of Rome so they put a stop to it. The other time I remember is when Constantine made one of his sons King of Kings and protector of Christians of the east by the Persians didn't go for it.
The greater question is how the frick did Alexander do it?
Dude sweeped basically the entire known world in one campaign.
How did he get his army to put up with this shit?
well uh they did very famously try to mutiny a few times
>near east and persia
>muh known world
China in the east and carthage in the west?
China may as well have been El Dorado for how known it was and Carthage was distant frontier.
because the "world" he conquered was already united
Persia at that time was militarily incompetent but bureaucratically and administratively still in top shape
this let Alexander conquer the entire Persian empire with a fairly limited amount of battles, while preserving it's structures of government so that the local people of the empire weren't actually affected in their daily lives what so ever
Macedonians were marauding Black folk, basically the mongols of their time.
Cope you persian femboy b***h.
He seriously fricked up by going beyond the borders of the Persian Empire and invading India:
>wasting time and manpower that could have been spent consolidating his conquests or preparing to go west to Italy or Carthage
>pissed off his army to the point of mutiny
>got severely wounded which likely contributed to his premature death
Going west wasn't an option. He had a large, veteran army, full of men who were ALL veterans of more battles than most people would be with 200 miles of in their lifetimes. Literally irreplaceable individually, unfathomable unit cohesion.
And they'd have dispersed never to be seen again if they ever got near home. They'd take their loot, frick off, go home, be very rich, and realize that campaigning sucks, foreign lands are gay, and they like fricking their wives and slaves every day.
And he'd have zero way to recall them all. He'd have to start again with a new army.
Alexander's conquest was a fluke. Every major thing that could go right for him, did.
imagine how many months it would take to send news from Rome to Bactria
Rome had the mediterranean as a highway
Rome could have built a Suez canal.
It has zero locks, just one even stretch of water, with enough slavery and disregard for human life it was buildable with ancient technology.
they had one but it connected to the nile. this was itself a reconstruction of a persian canal which was a reconstruction of an egyptian canal
Rome only conquered prehistoric tribes in Europe and sissy backward declining greeks and semites. The only time faced a real empire as Persia and Carthage they got btfo hard.
>salts carthage
>burns ctsephion down several times
nothing personnel kid
>burn Ctesiphon down several times
They only sacked it once and that was against the Parthians. And against the Persians they captured it once when the Persian emperor was fighting a two-front war between his brother's uprising in the east and nomadic steppeBlack folk in the North.
This is so wrong. Both Lucius Verrus and Septimius Severus sacked Ctesiphon while it was under Parthian rule.
And the city was sacked by Carus in 283 and Galerius in 298
>Carus
Literally no recorded of this exists. He was killed by his own soldiers for failing against the Persians (killed by a "bolt of lightning" being a metaphor for his troops murdering him) and the one attestment against the Persian city being captured was Galerius.Once more, it happened only once for the Sassanians and morons blow it up more because Ctesiphon wasn't the Persians only capital city.
LoL
What a cope.
>During the Roman–Parthian Wars, Ctesiphon fell three times to the Romans, and later fell twice during Sasanian rule. It was also the site of the Battle of Ctesiphon in 363 AD
>Roman-Parthian Wars
>Parthians
They are not the Persians you fricking moron, that's like saying the Scottish are the same as the English. Ctesiphon was only temporarily taken once against the Persian Sassanians and that was by Galerius. Are you the same dipshit who was outright earlier lying about Carus and Odaenathus taking the city when Carus was killed attempting to siege it and later Roman claims which can't be verified to claim it or you think a failed siege and then Odaenathus having to retreat because he couldn't breach the walls and a Persian relief force army coming made him hightail it back to Palymre?
>This is so wrong.
I'm not wrong.
>Verrus and Severus
Parthians, not the Persians.
>Carus
There is no proof of this and Carus' short-reign and troops mutiny doesn't support the claim he took Ctesiphon.
>Galerius
Was against Narses when most of his troops were in the Caucasus.
You were wrong, your post made it sound like Ctesiphon fell only twice, which isn't true. Also Oedenathus took the city against the Persians which I forgot to mention
Oedanathus never took the city. You are mentally ill if you can't understand or your reading comprehension is shit. 99% of the captures of Ctesiphon were against the Parthians/Arsacids, there is only one attested verified capture of the city from the Sassanians/Persians and that was by Galerius, Carus' claim doesn't even match historical chronology with his murder during the siege that was broken.
>Oedeanthus took the city
No he didn't. You are on one hand, optimistically misinformed or on the other hand, a fricking liar of the highest order.
>In a series of rapid and successful campaigns starting in 262, Odaenathus crossed the Euphrates and recovered Carrhae and Nisibis. He then took the offensive into the heartland of Persia, and arrived at the walls of its capital, Ctesiphon. The city withstood the short siege but Odaenathus reclaimed the entirety of the Roman lands occupied by the Persians since the beginning of their invasions in 252.
>Once at Ctesiphon, Odaenathus immediately began a siege of the well-fortified winter residence of the Persian kings; severe damage was inflicted upon the surrounding areas during several battles with Persian troops. The city held out and the logistical problems of fighting in enemy territory probably prompted the Palmyrenes to lift the siege.
So you consider a failed siege, a successful capture or sacking of city then being forced to retreat and return to your own territory after attrition, diminished supplies, and inability to maintain your army's station?
Carthaginians were semetic moron and romans destroyed them
Also persia nearly lost all of their wars against rome
too many g*rms on the danube and rhine to deal with, too many civil wars in between stability periods, too many revolts
"bro why didn't the US just annex the USSR? they had tanks and fighter jets and shit"
Oera Linda says Alexander was helped by Frya's folk. They didn't especially help the Romans despite Rome's sacred flame attended by vestal virgins deriving from the Earthmother.
>Why couldn't Romans pulled another "Alexander" conquest agaisnt Persia?
They would have if they hadn't stabbed their own Alexander to death.
But that allowed Augustus to come to power and Augustus was the best Roman blobber ever.
> Why couldn't Romans pulled another "Alexander" conquest agaisnt Persia? They clearly have more manpowers and golds than Greek city states.
Because some dumbasses assassinated Caesar, and after the next dude capable and willing enough came around Parthia was much, much more powerful than it was in the 1st century BC.
Parthia in Trajan's time was sure as hell not more powerful than 1st century BC Parthia. Pretty much once a generation from Trajan on through the next century, they'd try fricking with Romans and would get stomped until Ardashir revolted and overthrew them.
Do you think any of the barbarian kingdoms were in any shape to actually conquer all the others? Odoacer did manage to retake Sicily and Dalmatia. Theodoric, after killing him, took some bits of the Balkans and southern Gaul and had effective hegemony over the Visigothic Kingdom through his regency of Alaric II's son (Theodoric's grandson). Maybe without the dynasty disputes and Justinian's autism, the Ostrogothic Kingdom could've taken more (though I doubt they would've ever been strong enough to beat and conquer the Franks) but that didn't happen.
Alexander had a combined arms system while Romans focused on infantry and were thus vulnerable to ranged cavalry.
No, the Romans had a focus on sporadicaly giving command to absolute morons and tactical geniuses one after the other.
Hence Cassius destroying a Parthian army in Syria just a year after Carrhae, Publius Ventidius Bassus roflstomping the Parthians three times, and then Mark Anthony getting slapped around just some years after that by same Parthians.
It was entirely a command thing.
...always has been.
this is true
Also OP is a moron this is a geography question
If Alexander had started in Rome, he wouldn't have been able to conquer Persia either frick
>Hence Cassius destroying a Parthian army in Syria just a year after Carrhae,
True but Carrhae couldn't have happened if, like Alexander, the Romans had plenty of heavy and ranged cavalry. Crassus could have won Carrhae if he was clever with just the infantry since Roman infantry was so will armored, but with a decent cavalry a disastrous loss would have been all but impossible.
Alexander's heaviest cavalry we're wearing helmets, curiasses, and greaves, without a shield.or saddle.
His ranged cavalry were primarily armed with javelins. They'd have been slaughtered.
Trajan died and Hadrian abandoned his conquests because he had more important things to do like frick little Greek boys.
The Greeks literally did, OP. Read up on Heraclius.
It's just that they didn't get to enjoy their victory the second time 'round
Why couldn't Odoacer conquer all of the former Roman Empire if the Roman Republic did it when it was confined to less territory?
>if the Roman Republic did it when it was confined to less territory?
Because the Roman Republic was a completely different entity from anything that came after it. They were hyper militarized, literally half a million active soldiers could be called up by the Late Republic and very close to that in the Middle Republic. Odoacer had maybe 20-25000 men at his command, with less generals, less of a unified structure and without a massive enemy that could actually go toe to toe with them.
It's fascinating how anti-fragile the Roman Republic was for its size and how it seems every aspect of their society was geared to support war. I mean specifically from the Samnite Wars to the Third Punic War. What I'm talking about somewhat perpetuates until the Gallic Wars but I feel like after Carthage and Greece were subjugated the later conquests weren't nearly as demanding.
>They were hyper militarized, literally half a million active soldiers could be called up by the Late Republi
This is the answer. The book I'm reading now states that Republic Rome had the highest per capita enrolment in the military out of any nation/empire/etc ever.
because they wouldnt face the romans in one big decisive battle like they did with alexander, had they, then the romans would have.
bump
It's too far away.
Old wars were won by proximity and water travel.
Just goes to show how great Alexander was.
Also it could have happened had Caesar planned campaign not been fizzled out by his assassination.
Roman politics was founded on the idea that all the senators were equal. And that any, regardless of their ability, could hold imperium/army. This largely carried over to the empire. Roman emperors were careful who they gave commands too. And worked in tandem with the senate not against it. You don't wanna give it too someone who conquers an enemy like Persia then uses those legions against you. Many generals who gained a reputation east went on too do this.
It all evened out though bc romans had the best recruitment, officer core, tactics, gear, and soldiers in the Mediterranean. This could make up the deficiency of a bad senator/emperor.
In Macedonia though not so much. Backstabbing, civil wars, constant pressure from outside invasions/funding meant aristocrats and princes had to be impressive martially/tactically. Alexander came from the culmination of such a dynasty that survived this world for 300 years.
Alexander was the best bc that's what his society was primed him too do. Macedonia was an absolute monarchy and he was the pinnacle archetype of it.
>Roman politics was founded on the idea that all the senators were equal.
Nope. They had distinctions early on about former consul's being more prestigious and entitled to more room on the Senate floor than others. Not to mention elected officals were always more prestigious than those who were not. The later Roman Senate would further self divide itself into how close they were to the Emperor, what public positions in the civil service they or their family held, and wealth. With the richest and most highly positioned men forming an aristocracy of an aristocracy.
>They clearly have more manpowers and golds than Greek city states.
No, they did not. The rivalry between Rome and the Persian state(Parthia and Sassanids) didn't become serious until the early Empire. By the time Augustus became the first emperor, the Roman military was already stretch thin and reliant on auxiliary units for the manpower shortfalls of the legions, proper. This is why the Battle of Teutoberg Forest was such a huge deal for the Empire, whereas if such an equivalent disaster happened during the Republican Era the Roman people wouldn't have even blinked, and would have quickly raised another legion to replace one lost.
Imperial Rome did not have the manpower to pursue such a lengthy conquest. Regardless of how good the Roman commander was, be it Trajan or Julian the Apostate, this is why every campaign into the Persian Empire ultimately failed.
Did Alexander save his legacy by dying so early? Is the chance not high that history would have obfuscated him as just another Persian dynasty unless his generals and companions had all been autistic?
Should have left Persia alone and genocided every germanoid instead
Because for one why would they? Rome was already over stretched and Persia is difficult to maintain a hold over (ask the Diadochi). Ultimately any potential benefit would be outweighed by the cost especially seeing as how Rome went into civil war every 50 years or so.
Then there's the issue of the legions themselves, let's take a step back and remind ourselves firstly that Rome had to dedicate around 6-7 legions just to put down the Bar Kokhba revolt. How tf are they going to put down a large scale Persian revolt especially considering Persia is difficult to reinforce and has notoriously difficult terrain especially for an infantry heavy army.
Secondly Rome
>Because for one why would they?
Because they wanted to to the point of obsession and many late roman emperors were alexander fanboys. Many romeboos like to thrash the sasanians and even more the parthians, but the truth is that they tried and tried again but never succeeded. They never even took Mesopotamia except once, and taking and keeping Mesopotamia was perfectly doable for an empire centered around Greece/Anatolia, as shown by the Ottomans.
It's actually because most romeboos are actually republicboos (at least originally) and feel sad that the main baddies aren't the same ones as against Scipio and Caesar btw.
Different styles of fighting. Alexander controlled an army that was tailored for fighting against cavalry-centric armies that were common in the East. Rome made armies tailored against light infantry centered armies that was common among Europeans.
Easter armies weren't cavalry centric in the time of Alexander, they were archer centric. The vast majority of Persians fought on foot, with 8/10 being archers and the remaining 2 being shield bearers who's only job was to stand there and screen the archers.
The same was true of most everyone else - you basically either get masses or archers screened by spearmen, or mountain frickers who probably fight with javelins.
Cavalry at this point aren't using saddles. The horses are fairly small. They aren't capable of directly attacking infantry unless it's already badly disordered. Shock tactics don't exist. "Heavy" cavalry are bearing a spear- not couched- a sword, and at most, curiass, helmet, and greaves. You get some heavier cataphracts, but not many.
Horse archers CANNOT stand in the saddle the way later cavalry do. They're only capable of limited accuracy and foot archers will consistently shot in them. This is actually true all through history, but the gap gets smaller in latter eras.
Infantry is the centerpiece of absolutely everything, even in Alexander's army.
It’s hilarious how people think the Iranian empires/states were weak or something, they were incredibly powerful and rivals of Rome, especially the early Sassanids were literally unstoppable under Ardashir and Shapur, when Roman legions faced the actual trained Sassanid armies consisting of very trained soldiers, horse archers combined with heavy cataphracts they were literally unstoppable
>70 fricking posts
>nobody says cause they killed Caesar
Caesar was literally just about to go east and had just consolidated enough power to really push and he got killed. Any syrian, iraqi or iranian alive today should pray thankfully that Brutus and his butt buddies were traitorous scum
>didn't read the thread
I posted it
and so did this guy
bump
Because Alexander was in his own league.
>Alexander attacked at the lowest points of Persian Empire.
What? If any thing alexander attacked it at its strongest. Darius III just consolidate his empire and despite loosing two battles and nearly half his territory raised an army of 50,000+ at Gaugamela. That's is not indicative of weakness.
>If any thing alexander attacked it at its strongest. Darius III just consolidate his empire and despite loosing two battles and nearly half his territory raised an army of 50,000+ at Gaugamela. That's is not indicative of weakness.
Yes it fricking is, that is a pathetic force for such a large empire.
>aised an army of 50,000+ at Gaugamela.
a joke compared to what Xerxes threw at Greece. even more of a joke if you assume that the number was a bullshit overestimate like every number in the battles of antiquity.
Alexander was lucky
Alexander won a few battles and took over a failing empire
Persians usually won when fighting in plains while Romans usually won when fighting in the mountains of armenia which neutralized persian cavalry
Romans sacked 5 times the Persian capital in the Mesopotamian plain and even won multiple battles there while besieging the city under Julian and Oedanathus. Persians were weak and the only wortwhile part of their armies were Central Asian nomad mercenaries
Do you have a brain dysfunction?