Romans vs Germans

 When I make mistakes I just sneakily edit my post

I am not Persian

Turkish Captured your Canstantionople and just ince, untill today

How many Byzans Armies was became martyrs Becouse of Arabs, Sassanids, Khazars, Avars, Bulgars, Slavians??????

How many times Did Rome took Ctesifon????

Trayan????

What about VAlerian that laid under the legs of Shapur and prayed him to let him freee????????

Thank u for links, lets do not talk about battles that were won, becouse, if it was an empire, then it needed to won a battles in order to be

Why u do not talk about weakness of that empire

That would be better discussion

I kniow why, becouse, u will answer:

-there was no weak parts of Roman empire-

That is why Italy was under the horses of Hannibal 14 years????

that is why, more than 250 000 roman Princeps and Hastatiis died there, becouse Roma was not wea?????

Come on, be truthfull, nobody will hurt u, Just think

think that Romas was good, But was not the bes, and think why I think so

Carrhae:

30000 romans killed including 10 000 preatorian

10000 were sent to captivity

Less than 500 Parthians died

But, i am ok/

Give me a link, I wanna learn about those battles

Yeah, off cource, u will have no any information about it

Ok, Heraclius, Tell me The name of the battle That was More Than against 100 000 germans and Rome lost less than a thousand

Thell me The general that fought that battle, please

 The Parthians goals appear to have been little more than raiding Roman territory, obviously they knew their own limitations which is always a good thing. The Sassanids were a real menace in the east and definately a threat to likes of Asia Minor and Syria and more, the Sassinids took over at the perfect time, the Roman empire was on the verge of entering the most traumatic time in its history the crisis of the 3rd century, seeing the Roman empire almost collapse. The Roman empire then and after was almost constantly in civil war, economic crisis and suffering from massive barbarian invasions as the decline of the army increased more and more.

 Your right Belisarius about the Sassanids wish to restore the empire back to where it was under the Achaemenid empire.

 "Shapur King of Kings, brother of the sun and moon, sends salutation. Your own authors are witness that the entire territory within the river Strymon and the borders of Macedon was once held by my forefathers; were I require you to restore all this, it would not become ill of me... but because I take delight in moderation I shall be content to recieve Mesopotamia and Armenia"

 A letter from obviously King Shapur to the then Emperor Constantius in 360 I believe, suffice to say Constantius did not hand over any territory to Shapur. However it clearly shows the intentions of the Sassanids to reclaim territory they believed to be rightfully theirs. Undoubtedly Armenia and Mesopotamia would have been used to launch campaigns into Roman territory in the future making this *reconquest* a far more realistic goal.

 Nobody has tried to make out that the Romans were superior right throughout their history, at one time it was defeated by the Gauls and Rome itself was captured, there was a time when Rome had no decent navy and Carthage ruled the seas, there were times when Greek armies could dominate the legion on the battlefield. Pyrrhus of Epirus for example.

 Rome over time adapted, overcame and conquered the Gauls, destroyed Carthages navy and eventually the Carthaginian empire, survived Pyrrhus captured the Greek territories in south Italy and eventually conquered Macedonia and ruled the Greeks overall. Then onto the Diodochi in the east Selceucia being the biggest.

 The relationship between Parthia and then the Sassinids and Rome was one of fluctuating fortunes, a civil war for example could give the Parthians a great oppounity to raid Imperial territory and loot a few cities before the imperial army could return. The same the way when a poor ruler or weakened Parthia was about Rome could avenge the earlier raids by weakening its ancient foe further perhaps sacking the Parthian capital again and setting up puppet kings as a buffer.

 The difference is between Rome and the Parthians it the Parthians never threatened the existance of the Roman empire, they could raid and at times conquer territory such as Armenia, parts of Syria, Mesopotamia the Holyland etc. But the imperial armies would then return and either drive the Parthians out or the Parthians would withdraw rather than give battle.

 Never did the Parthians have a chance of actually conquering the Roman empire, the Roman armies were to big and powerful, its population much much larger than the Parthians and then Sassinids controlled, Rome was also fantastically wealthy. It could afford to replace armies it had the population to do it and the funds to pay for it.

 The Huns were a flash in the pan when it comes to Rome, they looted alot of cities and territory defeated alot of Barbarians and had its confrontations with Rome. Rome had had this for centuries already anyway, during the crisis of the 3rd century things were much much worse, by the time the Huns arrived the western Roman empire was as good as doomed anyway. But the Hunnic empire collapsed and were actually then used by the same empire they had once fought against, as mercenaries, the Byzantine empire used Huns in its mercenary forces in the North African campaigns and in Italy.