Why didn’t Persia send for help?
Printed From: History Community ~ All Empires
Category: Regional History or Period History
Forum Name: Ancient Mesopotamia, Near East and Greater Iran
Forum Discription: Babylon, Egypt, Persia and other civilizations of the Near East from ancient times to 600s AD
URL: http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=294
Printed Date: 28-Apr-2024 at 08:15
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 9.56a - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Why didn’t Persia send for help?
Posted By: Guests
Subject: Why didn’t Persia send for help?
Date Posted: 24-Aug-2004 at 14:29
|
Why didn't Yazdegird III ask China for help, against the Tazi?
|
Replies:
Posted By: Zagros
Date Posted: 24-Aug-2004 at 15:36
|
I think he did, the Chinese were defeated in central asia and retreated. His son became a chinese general I believe. ------------- |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 24-Aug-2004 at 16:19
|
defeated by whom? the Romans or the Tazi? that sounds weird.. didn't china have a great army at that time? how could the retreat? ------------- |
Posted By: warhead
Date Posted: 24-Aug-2004 at 17:24
| no, Tang didn't fight at all. Tai Zong denied the request because iran is too far away and he had no interest in that territory in dispatchinga troop that far with no purpose. |
Posted By: Imperatore Dario I
Date Posted: 24-Aug-2004 at 18:37
|
Ask for help against who? ------------- 
“Let there be a race of Romans with the strength of Italian courage.”- Virgil's Aeneid |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 24-Aug-2004 at 19:36
|
He did, in 638.
Yes, his son Peroz became a chinese general. |
Posted By: Mast
Date Posted: 25-Aug-2004 at 09:43
Tazi = Arabs |
Posted By: Dari
Date Posted: 31-Aug-2004 at 00:52
|
Tazi was used as a reference to the Arabs, it means, "Arab Hound Dogs". ------------- 
Dari is a pimp master |
Posted By: Zagros
Date Posted: 01-Sep-2004 at 17:56
|
No it does not. Tazistan was what the Arabian Peninsula was called, 'Sage Tazi' means hunting dog. ------------- |
Posted By: Zagros
Date Posted: 01-Sep-2004 at 17:57
|
TheChinese were definately defeated at some point during the era in question in Central Asia by the Arabs. ------------- |
Posted By: warhead
Date Posted: 03-Sep-2004 at 14:28
|
"TheChinese were definately defeated at some point during the era in question in Central Asia by the Arabs."
In 751 at the battle of talas, not during the time of Li Shi Min when Yazgerd asked for help. It was just a minor skirmish, arabs has also been defeated by Tang forces in smaller skimishes in Ferghana and Xing Jiang. |
Posted By: Zagros
Date Posted: 03-Sep-2004 at 14:32
thanks  ------------- |
Posted By: Zagros
Date Posted: 03-Sep-2004 at 14:32
|
jesus christ, that smiley's creepy, dude, i ain't no weirdo ------------- |
Posted By: Aryan
Date Posted: 18-Sep-2004 at 23:39
|
Has Iran ever been able to defend itself against invaders, attackers, occupiers and conquerers? It seems like just about anyone who ever attacked Persia/Iran managed to either occupy or totally conquer the country. Sad. Greeks/Macedonians, Arabs, Turks, Mongols, Turks again, Afghans...more recently the Brits in the early 20th century...They all attacked and they all managed to occupy Iran for a good deal of time.
|
Posted By: Evildoer
Date Posted: 19-Sep-2004 at 07:05
|
I don't think Turks ever occupied Persia. Neither did Afghans. Mongols conquered just about everything. Well, Germany was occupied by Huns at one time, and Romans conquered a whole South-Western part of it as well. Napoleon also occupied it temporarily. During WWI, a strip of West Germany was under the rule of French and Belgians, and a Eastern portion under that of Poles. After WWII, Americans, British and French occupied West Germany and the Soviets took over East Germany. Impressive military history eh? |
Posted By: Aryan
Date Posted: 19-Sep-2004 at 09:37
|
Yes very. My question is: Why was Persia never able to really defend itself against invaders and conquerers? Every single time someone attacked the whole empire collapsed like a house of cards. |
Posted By: Berosus
Date Posted: 01-Oct-2004 at 05:18
|
Hmm, the Parthians did better when they were defending Iran than when
they tried to conquer Roman territory; the Romans never got farther
than the Tigris valley. And Shah Abbas did an awfully good job
around 1600; he could defeat the Turks, even if the rulers before and
after him couldn't.
------------- Nothing truly great is achieved through moderation.--Prof. M.A.R. Barker |
Posted By: maersk
Date Posted: 01-Oct-2004 at 12:08
|
what if yasdegirid had been able to get help?.......... ------------- "behold, vajik, khan of the magyars, scourge of the pannonian plain!" |
Posted By: Miller
Date Posted: 03-Oct-2004 at 20:35
There are not that many countries that have been around for a couple of millenniums, are located right in the middle of the “old world”, and have been relatively rich through out most of their history. Add all of these up and you can imagine that there would be nomads or less affluent countries around them that would try to invade and take some of the riches. A few like Alexander, Genghiz Khan, and Mohammed succeeded and many you never hear about were defeated. Alexander came very close to getting killed in the first battle he fought against the Persians in Asia Minor. Had he died in that battle today you won't be reading stories about how he was defeated. That was expected and would have been too boring to mention. He would have been another one of these small rebels without a name who tries and failed and nobody knew about.
|
Posted By: warhead
Date Posted: 03-Oct-2004 at 22:52
|
"Has Iran ever been able to defend itself against invaders, attackers, occupiers and conquerers? It seems like just about anyone who ever attacked Persia/Iran managed to either occupy or totally conquer the country. Sad. Greeks/Macedonians, Arabs, Turks, Mongols, Turks again, Afghans...more recently the Brits in the early 20th century...They all attacked and they all managed to occupy Iran for a good deal of time."
You can say this with practically any area on earth.
|
Posted By: Miller
Date Posted: 03-Oct-2004 at 23:31
There are not that many countries that have been around for a couple of millenniums, are located right in the middle of the “old world”, and have been relatively rich through out most of their history. Add all of these up and you can imagine that there would be nomads or less affluent countries around them that would try to invade and take some of the riches. A few like Alexander, Genghiz Khan, and Mohammed succeeded and many you never hear about were defeated. Alexander came very close to getting killed in the first battle he fought against the Persians in Asia Minor. Had he died in that battle today you won't be reading stories about how he was defeated. That was expected and would have been too boring to mention. He would have been another one of these small rebels without a name who tries and failed and nobody knew about. |
Posted By: Fizzil
Date Posted: 03-Nov-2004 at 04:21
| I feel a bit offended when calling arabs dogs... i'm arab myself.. |
Posted By: Miller
Date Posted: 07-Nov-2004 at 17:12
|
Calling dogs Tazi is no different than calling cats Persian. You also have to remember that Tazi was the name Persians used to refer to “real Arabs” as in nomadic people that lived in part of what is Saudi Arabia now. Today term Arab is used to refer to any middle eastern that speaks Arabic whose ethnical identity or language somehow has been forgotten through the history. I don't think there is any offense intended by calling dogs Arab |