Who was the best Sassanid Emperor, /hist/? Who is your favorite? And who came closest to destroying Rome/Byzantine in your eyes? Who do you think is the most overrated or underrated members of the dynasty?
Leto Atreides II
>>774414
No shitposting pls
>>774401
Was Cyrus the Great more of a politician or military general/leader?
>>774442
Cyrus the Great wasn't a Sassanid member and he was equally both I guess.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khosrow_II
>>774511
Reasons?
>we will never a find the lost library of Ctesiphon, with hundreds of new texts to translate telling us all about Persia and how Rome was viewed from the outside
>>775082
At least we still have the Book of Kings.
>>774511
What is over extension
>>774506
Because you're an autist and can't handle someone else's humor?
>>775169
I would consider an impossible nigh probable scenario of an 11th hour hailmary comeback against 24-25 years of dominance of a 29 year war not something so far simplistically defined as fucking "over extension".
Though I do agree that if Khosrau Parviz had agreed to accepting the gains he and his generals already taken from the Byzantines when Heraclius took the throne, things might've been more stable in the future.
>>775180
How the hell is that autism?
I liked the guy that was crowned king in the womb. They just knew he was going to be awesome.
Why were the Sassanids so autistic about attacking the ERE? It's literally all they did. I'm almost glad they got shrekt by Arabs.
>>775356
What? No they attacked other people and often had decades of peace with Rome. The fuck are you talking about? Learn some history before asking stupid questions.
>>775356
>Byzantines want to remove Sassanids to be the sole power dominant the Levant and Near East
>And resent the Sassanids for their involvement in the Silk Road and Indian trade routes
>Sassanids want to restore their territory and boarders to the glory of what the Achaemenids had centuries before
>And want to hold the valuable lands in the Caucasus and North Africa
Also to be fair, even under Khosrau II, they weren't looking to exterminate the Byzantines just expel them from Asia.
>>775356
>It's literally all they did.
They also fought the Kushans in India, later the Hephtalites in Central Asia and India, then the Gokturks. Also they fought the Huns at one point but they decided the liked Rome more and moved over there. They played at politics in Armenia and the Arabian Peninsula, including creating vassal Christian Arab kingdoms there.
They did lots of stuff, but we mainly read Western sources, so their involvements in the west are more well known.
Although yes, the war with ERE in early 600s got out of hand quickly and was pretty bad fore everyone involved.
>>776698
They fought a shit ton of people that weren't the Romans/Byzantines, but most people tend to be ignorant of that. The Sassanids for example played a huge role in deflecting or stopping a lot of migrating tribes invading from Central Asia, the Steppes, and Eurasia.
Hell even the Huns were wary of the Sassanids enough that they took a longer route around the Persians to attack both the ERE and WRE since the Sassanids were enjoying their first golden age in terms of prosperity and wealth as well as military standing.
>>774401
I wonder what would've happened if Khosrau II and Heraclius had concluded a treaty mid-way into their war and peace had reigned after that. Would they have been sufficiently strong enough to buffer Islam from ever expanding out of Arabia?
>>781052
Thought it had to do with the fact that not only did the Sassanids have light and medium cavalry who excelled at both close and long range warfare but also going through their first golden age when the Huns were ransacking through Eurasia and Eastern Europe and were just seen as too strong to challenge?
But yeah having a shit ton of auxelleries and allies like Parni and other Iranic horsemen would be a huge issue.
>>775082
who cares, both rome and persia got rekt by based Islam
>>781141
>>781155
Non-one conquered the Arabs because Arabia was not worth conquering. It has shit all in it to tax other than semi decent soldiers from the terrain. Fortunately for them, both of the major powers in the area had no defenses against them, and had just slaughtered each other for multiple decades. Cue the battle of Yarmuk.
>>781474
Arabization is the worst thing that couldve happened to the MENA
>>781474
>Non-one conquered the Arabs
Except that's wrong you fucking moron. The Persians, Greeks, Macedonians, Romans, Byzantines, Persians again, even Axum and Eithopeans conquered large swathes of Arabia at one point or another.
>>775356
Usually because the Romans took the border regions leaving them with a poorly defensible border, they spent centuries trying to redress the issue. When the Romans finally gave them some of the fortress cities back, they calmed down for many decades.
>>781474
Except both the Arsacids and Sassanids desired at leas tall the major coastal regions of Arabia and Yemen because of how lucrative the trade routes and shipping lanes were commercially between Africa, Europe, and Asia.
>>774401
Khosrau I, the Anosharvan. Hors concours.
One of the most ingenious rulers that humanity has ever produced, at any time and place.
>pic related
>>782140
What is that?
>>781141
>Islam
>more based than Zoroastrianism
Leave.
>>783539
>gets beaten by a significantly smaller army
>somehow more based
Stop
>>783568
>significantly smaller army
>usual sources site this has never "verified" from Arab sources
Okay
>>783865
>>usual sources site this has never "verified" from Arab sources
what did he mean by this
>>783887
That the Arab claims of fighting 1 gorllion Byzantines and Persians are usually never been historically attested or proven.
>>783896
>Persia
>heavily outnumber the Arabs
>after going through a 7 year plague that wiped out over half its population
>multiple civil wars
>and half also an exhaustive 28-29 year with Byzantine that left both Persia and Byzantine heavily taxed, economically crippled, plagued with famine and shortages of manpower
>constantly "outnumbering" Arabs
Nah, like I said just a post before you, most Arab claims have never been verified and usually are coming from 2nd or 3rd party sources.
>>783896
Probably because most modern historians who specialize in Near Eastern studies have rejected the idea of a heavily volatile and unstable Sassanid Empire that was recorded being hit with a nearly decade long plague right when the plague hit Khosrau Parviz's successor in Ctesiphon with Heraclius to end the war raged on for several years. As well as multiple Byzantine and Persian sources attesting to the Euphrates and Tigris rivers both overflooding major croplands and causing widespread famine throughout urbanized areas of Persian lands.
So its pretty preposterous that despite Arab and solely Arab claims that the Persians were fielding armies near or exceeding 50,000+ to 100,000 men in every battle they had.
>>783922
Cite yours that isn't Arab.
