http://www.parthia.com/map_extent.htm
Parthia didn't include Campus Sakae - the province at the border with Scythia as we see in RTW. What provinces will compose Parthia in Europa Barbaroum? With respect, Cronos Impera.
Printable View
http://www.parthia.com/map_extent.htm
Parthia didn't include Campus Sakae - the province at the border with Scythia as we see in RTW. What provinces will compose Parthia in Europa Barbaroum? With respect, Cronos Impera.
We will no longer be using the old map. And their starting position will reflect the Parni's holdings, not the Parthian Empire, as they had yet to invade the Selecuids.
Steppe , your post's show me again and again that your mod is a fine one . there was no Parthian empire in 280 or 270 bce !!! people tends to forget that . the Parni were a small tribe in those years , but if I am not wrong , they lived with in the Seleucid empire . ??Quote:
Originally Posted by Steppe Merc
~:cheers:
I think on the edge. I'm not sure if they were actually part of the Selecuid Empire or not, or if they were one of the steppe tribes that served the Selecuids.
But they took most of their lands from the Selecuids by force, which corresponded roughly with Baktria's succesion.
I could find out more if you like... :book:
Yes please ~:)
Well it's from Wiki, but it corresponds from what I've read:
So Parthia the province succededed, then the Parni came in and took it over. It seems that the Parni were not in actual Selecuid lands, or at least lands that they had any control over.Quote:
It was insufficient, however. In 245, the satrap of Parthia, a man named Andragoras, revolted from the young Seleucid king Seleucus II, who had just succeeded to the throne. In the confusion, the Parni attacked and seized the northern part of Parthia, a district known as Astavene, probably in 238. About 235, a Parnian prince with the name Tiridates (Modern Persian Tirdad, meaning 'Great archer') ventured further south and seized the rest of Parthia. A counter-offensive by king Seleucus ended in disaster, and Hyrcania was also subdued by the Parni.
From then on, the Parni were known as Parthians. In the years that followed, their kings recognized the Seleucid king as their superiors, but under Mithradates I (171-138) they conquered Media, Babylonia, and Elam from the Seleucids. The Parthian empire was to last until AD 224, when it was succeeded by the Sassanid empire.
This is why we need the next preview to be parthia. ~:)
Trust me, I want it as much as you do. ~D
I never cared much for Parthia, not my style of combat.
The Dahae confederacy, of which the Parni tribe was a part, controlled the lands east of the Caspian Sea. Their control extended to the Aral sea into Chorasmia. The Parni tribe eventually moved south into the area of what is now northeastern Iran. It is unclear whether this occurred as part of an invasion or was a gradual movement of nomadic groups. Chorasmia itself at this time shows signs of considerable damage to some cities, in the archeological record and seems to indicate that the conquest was both recent and unpleasant. Around 300 BC there are indication that they were responsible for the damage done to Alexandreia in Margiana. The Dahae had been moving generally west which can be loosely tracked by references in Hellenic sources and the archeology. Strabo reports that Arsaces (this may have only been a tribal title) was said to be the chief of the (S)parnoi tribe of the Dahae.
What is known is the details of the Andragoras revolt that Steppe Merc posted. The Parni soon became known as Parthians (Pahlavans) from the province of Parthava (Parthia), which the Greeks called Parthyaia. Their arrival was largely welcomed by the Iranian peoples, but not by all. They shared a mutual hostility with the Persians proper from the province of Persis in southern Iran. This is not the same as 'Persians' in the greater sense. They were much friendlier with the Medians of the north and their languages were related. The culture of the Medians (Mada) was more inclined towards the nomadic nature of Eranshahr (Iran) than the more settled Persians of Persis were. The Parthians got along with the north Iranian peoples better than with those of the south. The Sassanid Persians would eventually arise from the province of Persis and achieve the final victory in a feud lasting hundreds of years.
They proceeded to conquer the Seleucid realm, and the Greeks being of a more feminine nature were unable to resist the advances of the more viral Parthians. Parthian rule was always largely decentralized and in many ways similar to the european feudal states. They promoted the Achaemenid Persian heritage but also stood as protectors of the Hellenistic tradition as well. Greek was retained as an official language of the kingdom. The Greek cities were largely autonomous which the concept of the Hellenic Polis was very comfortable with.
Some have speculated that Greek infantry from these cities may have been available to the Parthians, but as there is no western record of their use and the bulk of the Parthian records remain untranslated it must remain speculation only. It is known that they employed captured Greek heavy infantry and Romans when the opportunity arose. The division of Parthian society between Azad, "freemen" and Bandaka, "slaves" is a fable of Hellenic records. Everyone from the highest nobles down were defined as bandaka, the word meant 'bondsmen' or 'retainers', what we mean by the word 'subject'. We are all subjects of the Queen, but not her slaves.
https://img310.imageshack.us/img310/...amap5il.th.gif
At the start of the time in question they controlled the regions north of khurasan and Chorsamia, both of which they would lose as their empire developed.
The Parni (like the Daha before) came in the 3rd cen' bce , from the Central-Asian steppe to Bactria , Aria and Parthia (Iran) .
In 245 bce...
Seems a little complicated , shrouded in fog
Yeah, a lot of the non Greek and Roman factions are a bit confusing, especially the nomadic ones whose records (if any) are unavailable.
A little research ...
The origins of the Parthian people are clouded. Strabo (xi, 515) says the first Arsaces was a Scythian man with the semi-nomadic Parni tribe, a part of the Dahi, nomads who lived along the Ochus (Tejend or lower Oxus) River, who invaded and conquered Parthia. Strabo also mentions those who claim Arsaces was a Bactrian who escaped from Diodotus after a failed revolt. Justin (xli, 1) agrees Arsaces was a Scythian. Frye's analysis is that we can believe the Parni origins, but it was more likely a migration than an invasion that brought them, and Arsaces, to Parthia. (History, p. 207) These people would not be known as Parthians until they moved southward into the Persian province of Parthava sometime before 250 B.C. Achaemenian and early Greek references to "Parthians" refer to earlier inhabitants of Parthava, not the Arsacid Parthians. (Debevoise, Political History, 2; W. M. Montgomery, Early Empires).
hhhmmm
I know that they fought with the Achaemid Persians. Herodotus lists them in the Imperial force of Xerxes, under the Satrap Artabazus. However, I'm unsure if they were Parni or were from the Parthian province...
As I said , complicated , but maybe this is going to help - a map of Parthia in its beginning
http://americanhistory.si.edu/collec...es/pamabeg.htm
They were ostensibly under Seleukid suzerainity, in the sense that they were vassals to the Seleukid crown. However, as with Baktria, and in this case maybe even more so, the Parni were very independent in their actions.Quote:
Originally Posted by caesar44
What led to the establishment of the Parni in the old satrapies of Hyrkania and Parthia was interpreted by the Seleukids as a rebellion. Or was that the declaration of the Arsacids as being kings from there on? Regardless, there was more than enough reason for the Seleukids to attack them; Antiochos III's anabasis to the east, following his defeat at Raphia, was not only aimed at bringing satraps in Iran back into the fold and once again annexing Baktria, but also at reducing the slowly but steadily expanding Parthians back to the position of vassal once again.
~Wiz
So the Parni was just a satelite of Selucia, that with skilled diplomacy managed to get independence and later drive out the Seleucids alltoghether. The Parthians had their state placed on the silk road and thus had contact with Chinease and Indian tradesman. Those Indians and Chinease could have acted as mercenaries. Through the Silk Road eastern culture and technology reached the Mediteranean.
See http://www.silkroadproject.org/silkroad/map.html
Ideea 1. The Parthian roads should be at least as good as Roman ones
2. Parthia shold have Indian and Chinease mercs.
3 Parthian uniforms should be more eastern
Good luck! I await your opinions on this.
I don't think that the dress of the Parthians would have changed. I'm pretty sure that they continued to dress just as the other Iranian nomads did (though they were richer, of course).
Indian units, yes. Chinese, don't think so.
The silk road wasn't a particularly 'good' road, in the sense that roman roads were good - i.e well engineered and constructed. it simply brought a lot of wealth through their provinces which they were able to tax.With this in mind, parthian roads should not be any better than other eastern tribes.
Personally I don't think that the 'silk road' itself should be something that can be built, it is merely something that passes through some parthian provinces. However, parthian provinces that the silk road does pass through (not all parthian cities) should have a large trade bonus, and by building markets and merchants quarters, should be able to increase this substantially.
Actually, personally I'd be happier if the silk road was something that passed through seleucid provinces too, maybe as far as Antioch, and east as far as Kashgar, with each province it passes through getting a big trade bonus, it wasn't just the parthians who knew how to cash in on hungry tired merchants who have been travelling for months
I believe all our unique buildings are set for the open beta, at this point. David is working on other things at the moment.
i believe it would be fun if the mods made the silk road something unseen, merely a huge trade bonus. That way any faction that possesses the province through which the silk road passes will profit from it regardless... it will be a good land counterbalance to the sea, since there isn't any water in central asia that can improve trade for the landlocked factions. That way too, we can have fun trying to figure out which provinces have the silk road, if the mods keep it secret :)
The Persian Empire left the Seleucids and Parni with an excellent infrastructure. Persian runners invented the mail, remember. Persian engineers built great cities and roads ( see Persepolis) connecting all provinces of their empire. The Parthians have the same origins as the persians ( iranian origins ). They must have inhereted the persian infrastructure as well. That way parthian armies could move very efective through their lands. :duel: :duel: :charge:Quote:
Originally Posted by Greek_fire19
They didn't need roads to move quickly. They were orignally nomads, remeber? ~;)
I'm not suggesting that Persia didn't have a good infrastructure. It was a fairly heavily populated region of the ancient world and they build good roads connecting the major cities, especially in the south.
I was merely disputing your claim that because of the silk road 'parthian roads should be at least as good as roman roads' when roman highways were engineering masterpieces that the nomadic parthians, for all their undoubted abilities, probably couldn't match.
Iranian military historians generally believe that the Parthians relied on armies fully composed of cavalry because of the ever-present possibility of a two-front war. You see, they might have been nomads originally and therefore naturally reliant on cavalry, but after their settlement they could have easily used more infantry -- see the Huns.
The thing is they didn't. Pressure from Greeks and Romans from the West, and from Greeks and nomads from the East forced them to make a mobile army. Apparently the infastructure of Iran wasn't that well-developed, because they decided to fully rely on cavalry, and not develop a (perhaps small) core of reliable infantry for sieges and perhaps battlefield uses -- like the Sassanids -- to get around Iran quickly to adequately respond to threats on both frontiers.
~Wiz
But they certaintly had some infantry. Mainly light skirmishers that would fit in well with their fast moving, long ranged style of warfare.
I think they had Iranian cavalry, Indian merks and spearmen drawn from their cities.
There is at least some evidence in literary sources (Justin and Polybius) of Parthians using infantry. It didn't always exactly work, though...
After crushing the last Seleucid attempt to retake their lost eastern dominions from the Parthians in 130 BCE (killing the Seleucid king Antiochos VII Sidetes in the process), the Parthian King Frahates II had to turn eastwards to fight a major invasion of nomadic Sakae. Justin says that the army he took east included many captured Greeks. They couldn't all be cavalry, I'd say. Apparently, Frahates mistreated them and they deserted en masse while in battle, leading to a disaster in which Frahates II himself was slain in 127/128 BCE.
In 209 BCE there was another Seleucid attempt to bring the Parthians and other rebellious eastern provinces (Baktria, for example) back to control. Antiochos III Megas led a major expedition eastwards and Arsaces II, Parthian king then, refused battle in open ground and retreated beyond the mountains of Hyrkania. Polybius gives a very explicit account of Antiochus' army fighting enemy infantry to force the mountain passes at Mount Labus (Mount Elburz). The Seleucids succeeding in doing that and as they cleared the mountains, Arsaces II offered no further resistance and came to offer his submission, which Antiochos accepted.
Yes, I am aware of both of those, but I was more referring to a native infantry core as seems to have been employed by the Sassanids.
~Wiz
Polybius speaks of "barbarians", i.e non-Greeks, i.e. native infantry. That said, it is similarly clear that Parthian armies could be, and frequently were, exclusively made up of cavalry. No argument about that.
Pathian horseman could have used un-mounted cavalryman as infantry. The romans looked upon seleucids and parthians as barbarians. The main core of a parthian army ware camel-mounted and horse-mounted units, but their close proximity to India and Greece provided them with the well-needed infantry for sieges and fighting phalanxes.
Unique buildings for proposal: Coffee/Tea house ( like taverns )
Persian Gardens ( skinned from sacred grove ).
And, infantry could still ride horses to GET TO the battle. That would make them as mobile as cavalry strategically, if not tactically.Quote:
Originally Posted by Steppe Merc
Indeed, most camel riders were mounted infantry, rather than actually fighting on the camels.