I have to be careful reading articles like this. I have hundreds of hours logged in 2004's Rome Total War. All it takes is reading some interesting fact about Rome's military or one of their enemies and I can find myself losing a day or two in a new campaign. Even though the first Rome Total War came out 15 years ago, it is still the pinnacle of historical simulation video games to me. Simple yet endless replay value in trying out new tactics and strategies.
One of the great "what-ifs" of history is that when Julius Caesar was assassinated, he was preparing for a campaign against the Parthian Empire. What if, Julius Caesar was not assassinated and was able to launch his invasion of Parthia.
Julius Caesar was one of the greatest generals in history, and arguably Rome's best general (with the possible exception of Scipio Africanus). In addition, as evidenced by his visit to the tomb of Alexander the Great, he idolized Alexander, and I am sure would have loved to try to do what Alexander did in conquering Persia. Years later Trajan did figure out how to invade the Parthian capital city of Ctesiphon by moving columns down the Euphrates - so a successful invasion was possible.
With Julius Caesar's assassination Rome fell into civil war. Mark Antony tried an invasion, but as history showed, he was not nearly the general Julius Caesar was. Julius's successor, Augustus, was not a military genius in any sense, and was too worried about his position in Rome to risk an invasion of Parthia, and was content just to get the Roman standards back that had been lost by Crassus.
Subsequent history may have been a lot different if Julius Caesar had not been assassinated when he was.
There's actually something deeply weird about Caesar's assassination. He was well aware that folks were plotting against him, and was incredibly complacent about it all - this is something that ancient sources mention again and again, not just urban legend. You can read that as him just being fatalistic (which was incredibly common in the ancient world) but it's almost as if he willfully invited the whole thing.
i agree with about 98% of what you said, but julius caesar had also heavily mortgaged the future for the present. he had aging legions who had already mutinied a few times and he kept winning them back with more and more promises that he'd not yet fulfilled. i wonder if a force as formidable as the parthian archers would be something that ended up finally breaking the resolve of those experienced legions.
An Iranian friend of mine who is a history buff (but not qualified in it) says that the fall of Parthia to the Arab conquests was galvanised in Persian culture and is one of the driving factors of hostilities between modern day Iran and the Arabian peninsula.
Since Iran then was then subsequently ruled by Caliphs, Turkish Sultans and then western rulers. There is an inferiority complex in Persian politics.
It's an interesting thought, although I am not too sure how much bearing it has in reality.
To an extent, as an Iranian, it is partially true that post Sassanian, no other Iranian dynasty had command over the entirety of historic Iranian lands and boundaries. The last Iranian dynasty, the Pahlavi dynasty of the 20th century came closest.
> There is an inferiority complex in Persian politics.
I'm quite confident that mindset is a thing of the past. (Look at China.) Currently of course we are burdened with a regime that is polluting Iranian culture. But this too shall pass, God willing.
[p.s. regarding other mis-statements]:
> Since Iran then was then subsequently ruled by Caliphs, Turkish Sultans and then western rulers.
That's a pretty substantial piece of real estate, agreed?
> western rulers.
Possibly you are referring to the Pahlavi Shahs (?), in which case it important to point out that if the Shah of Iran was in fact a puppet of the West they would not have been so pleased to see him go. You may want to take a trip to Iran and ask the natives what are their feelings towards the Pahlavi dynasty these days ...
I think that is different Persian empire, but they are right the Byzantines (Romans) and Persians where involved fighting each other which weakened them.
And the Bizarre doctrinal spats that Byzantium went in for didn't help - we wont mention the IV crusade.
The Arab invasion of Persia is overblown. What seems to have happened is some Buffer states between Byzantine and Persia revolted and took some land in Iran.
Most of Islam's early history is forged. For example take the location of their holy city of Mecca. Muhammed never stepped into Mecca and he was from Petra. Dan Gibson has done an excellent documentary on it (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qOnGvzVceVo)
As for the name Muhammed goes, it means "chosen one". It was name used to refer to Jesus initially. Half the christians claimed he was the son of god while the other half believed he was just a normal human who was chosen by god. They started calling him Muhammed instead implying he was not the son of god.
sassanians were very capable, to be sure and, to be fair, though the article doesn't really specify the date, edessa and valerian were centuries later in rome's history, near the tail-end of the unified empire (30-ish years before diocletian).
so i'm not sure there's a desire to forget about the battle of edessa, or the skinning of valerian - it's in the history, but the tone of the article seems to be regarding the threats to the emerging and established empire and not the crumbling one.
Love Mike Duncan! I’m going through his “Revolutions” podcast now and it’s terrific. Also worth mentioning Dan Carlin’s podcast about the Achaemenids, obviously about an earlier period of Iranian history than tfa but very good stuff. He covers a great deal more than the Greek wars, and in the west it’s a story we don’t usually hear told from the “other side”.
Fwiw though I’ll take generally Mike Duncan over Carlin - Carlin’s a world class storyteller but imo he gets too caught up in hypotheticals and war stories. Duncan doesn’t have the quite the same “favorite professor” delivery but he covers things from more angles.
[+] [-] Ozumandias|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Mobius01|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sifar|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] RcouF1uZ4gsC|6 years ago|reply
Julius Caesar was one of the greatest generals in history, and arguably Rome's best general (with the possible exception of Scipio Africanus). In addition, as evidenced by his visit to the tomb of Alexander the Great, he idolized Alexander, and I am sure would have loved to try to do what Alexander did in conquering Persia. Years later Trajan did figure out how to invade the Parthian capital city of Ctesiphon by moving columns down the Euphrates - so a successful invasion was possible.
With Julius Caesar's assassination Rome fell into civil war. Mark Antony tried an invasion, but as history showed, he was not nearly the general Julius Caesar was. Julius's successor, Augustus, was not a military genius in any sense, and was too worried about his position in Rome to risk an invasion of Parthia, and was content just to get the Roman standards back that had been lost by Crassus.
Subsequent history may have been a lot different if Julius Caesar had not been assassinated when he was.
[+] [-] zozbot234|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] swasheck|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] yourbandsucks|6 years ago|reply
Not that I'm saying you're wrong, but invading Parthia would be a rather different story than invading Gaul.
[+] [-] dreen|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] farummi|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mothsonasloth|6 years ago|reply
Since Iran then was then subsequently ruled by Caliphs, Turkish Sultans and then western rulers. There is an inferiority complex in Persian politics.
It's an interesting thought, although I am not too sure how much bearing it has in reality.
[+] [-] eternalban|6 years ago|reply
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parthian_Empire
It was the 3rd Iranian empire (I do not consider Elam to be Iranian) that fell to the Arabs, the Sassanian:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sassanian_Empire
To an extent, as an Iranian, it is partially true that post Sassanian, no other Iranian dynasty had command over the entirety of historic Iranian lands and boundaries. The last Iranian dynasty, the Pahlavi dynasty of the 20th century came closest.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Iranian_dynasties_and_...
> There is an inferiority complex in Persian politics.
I'm quite confident that mindset is a thing of the past. (Look at China.) Currently of course we are burdened with a regime that is polluting Iranian culture. But this too shall pass, God willing.
[p.s. regarding other mis-statements]:
> Since Iran then was then subsequently ruled by Caliphs, Turkish Sultans and then western rulers.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samanids
That's a pretty substantial piece of real estate, agreed?
> western rulers.
Possibly you are referring to the Pahlavi Shahs (?), in which case it important to point out that if the Shah of Iran was in fact a puppet of the West they would not have been so pleased to see him go. You may want to take a trip to Iran and ask the natives what are their feelings towards the Pahlavi dynasty these days ...
[+] [-] C1sc0cat|6 years ago|reply
And the Bizarre doctrinal spats that Byzantium went in for didn't help - we wont mention the IV crusade.
[+] [-] throwaway_par|6 years ago|reply
Most of Islam's early history is forged. For example take the location of their holy city of Mecca. Muhammed never stepped into Mecca and he was from Petra. Dan Gibson has done an excellent documentary on it (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qOnGvzVceVo)
As for the name Muhammed goes, it means "chosen one". It was name used to refer to Jesus initially. Half the christians claimed he was the son of god while the other half believed he was just a normal human who was chosen by god. They started calling him Muhammed instead implying he was not the son of god.
[+] [-] eternalban|6 years ago|reply
I wonder if there persists a desire to forget about the Battle of Edessa?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Edessa
[+] [-] swasheck|6 years ago|reply
so i'm not sure there's a desire to forget about the battle of edessa, or the skinning of valerian - it's in the history, but the tone of the article seems to be regarding the threats to the emerging and established empire and not the crumbling one.
[+] [-] B1FF_PSUVM|6 years ago|reply
https://www.ancient.eu/image/146/the-silk-road/
which in turn has a map image with better resolution:
https://www.ancient.eu/uploads/images/146.png?v=1485680513
[+] [-] namdnay|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] smogcutter|6 years ago|reply
Fwiw though I’ll take generally Mike Duncan over Carlin - Carlin’s a world class storyteller but imo he gets too caught up in hypotheticals and war stories. Duncan doesn’t have the quite the same “favorite professor” delivery but he covers things from more angles.
[+] [-] DerSaidin|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sho|6 years ago|reply