
Originally Posted by
The Persian Cataphract
I don't understand the fascination given to this character; Some of you already fantasize about Rome putting an end to the Sassanians in counter-factual terms without truly understanding exactly why the Romans not only failed, but failed in the most miserable possible manner. Julian may have had his tactical victories, but studying his invasion of Mesopotamia reveals many flaws in his strategem; His logistics and his underestimation of the Persian forces were to become his bane. Even after the sacking of Ctesiphon, two times, by Trajan and Septimius Severus, during what was considered a great moment of weakness for the Arsacid dynasty, the Parthians still managed, by military force to re-establish the Euphrates as the western frontier after emperor Macrinus' defeat at Nisibis, at the hands of King of Kings Artabanus IV. Afterwards, some of you conveniently, or by ignorance overlook the ignition of destruction wrought by Shapur I, who not only captured emperor Valerian at Edessa, but brought perhaps the greatest of all factors contributing to the fragmentation of the Roman empire. Do some of you even realize this? This is essential information; In order to know how the Palmyran kingdom took shape, one must appreciate the extent of the Sassanian threat to the East.
Shapur II The Great was certainly no push-over; Some of you count the battle of Ctesiphon as some sort of a defeat wrought upon the Sassanians. I consider it only a defeat by the tactical level. The Parthians and the Sassanians lost Ctesiphon many times; Five times in total during Romano-Byzantine times. Yet the Iranians persevered. Julian's campaign can almost be compared to the humongous failure of Marcus Antonius' invasion of Parthia; Even with a touted 100,000 men according to Roman sources, he failed to breach past Ganzacas, and even then, it was during a time when the Parthians faced their first period of decline after the fatal defeat of Prince of Princes Pacorus at Cyrrhestica. Now Shapur II The Great lead the Sassanians to their second Golden Age, and is often deemed one of the most efficient, but also the most harsh of the Sassanian dynasts, and you expected Julian to just swoop past Persia and putting an end to it? What is this madness? Has Persia suddenly turned into some booty of war that any conqueror could just come to annex by will? Does the sound of defeating the "uncouth eastern barbarians" sound appealing to you? Do some of you already forget and overlook the fact that during the last Byzantine-Persian war, the Byzantines were so weakened that the Sassanians reached as far as Carthage and Constantinople, only to even then fail to conquer the Romans, even in such desperate times? This is folly.
Standing at 800 years, the Partho-Sassanian legacy stood like a bedrock, a true rival of the Romans, while sandwiched between whatever the emerging super-power in Central Asia, India and the Graeco-Romans to the west. People would laugh at me if I made a thread about Shapur's supposed future invasion of Rome herself, even in spite of humiliations wrought upon no less than three Roman emperors, but apparently people can fantasize about "Persia Capta" because the wretched Alexander Mystique allows them such a privilege. Even Belisarius lost, and he lost during a time when the Persians were almost absorbed into the Hepthalite hegemony, but against who? An unknown officer called "Azarethes". I don't know what some of you are smoking, but you'll need to pass that shit over here and let me have a few puffs.
Bookmarks