@cosmopolitan.mapp: Why didn't Rome just conquer Persia? #HistoryTime #romanempire #persia #trajan #aurelian

Goblinus :

the Persians were weak when Alexander invaded them, the parthians were extremely effective at countering the Romans

keagan_65 :

Caesar tried, Augustus lied, Alexander in 5

Stalker Hocine :

overrated empire

king of heroes Gilgamesh :

because persia was so weak in Alexander invasion but in this time ,was pathian empire and thay were strong 💀

Christian Spigariol :

It would simply have been an impossible territory to control. Rome conquered the Persian capital not once, not twice, but five times. But the Romans knew that adding such vast territories to an already vast empire would have been logistical suicide. The Romans constantly faced other threats such as the Britons, Germans, and steppe tribes, and all these wars were very costly. Having to move tens of thousands of troops to maintain stability in the Persian territories would therefore have been economic and strategic suicide. The wars between Rome and the Persian Empire served to make both peoples understand that both were strong and unwilling to be conquered. Furthermore, the presence of an empire like the Persians guaranteed Rome trade and a military shield from other tribes migrating eastward. Alexander the Great, without taking anything away from his skill, never had to manage his conquests, because he died very young. He never had to deal with managing a vast empire and the various logistical and economic problems. Furthermore, Alexander used his entire army to conquer a rather badly reduced Persia, also because Alexander did not have to worry about possible attacks from other areas and could use his full military and economic power for the military campaign, unlike Rome, which had to divide its troops and its military budget between Germany, Spain, Greece, North Africa, Britain, and Eastern Europe to quell revolts and fight invaders. Alexander did not have this problem, in addition to not having to deal with the logistical and economic management of the empire, since he practically never managed it.

Muhammad Shahir :

seeker richard :

Rome most overrated empire in the history

Ahoora :

🗿

أَحمَد☪︎🇪🇬 :

Uegorz :

Rome had many fronts open, the Persians did not.

coolbeans :

the answer is simple, when Alexander faced the persians led by Darius III the Macedonian army simply was more innovated and professional than the persians, parthians and later sassanids understood if they didnt want to be overrun like the achaemanids (dont know if i spelled their name right) theyd have to focus on the army more than just spamming numbers

Hedayat :

Parthians never tried to invade them but they were serious in defending their country

✥ IC XC NIKA ✥ :

Heraclius?

Ω AVATAR . FADEL Ω :

الشيباني 🇩🇯 :

☦️✝️🇬🇷 :

mabast :

Muslim Pashtun ☪️ :

when Alexander invaded the Persians were weak and the dynasty didn't had any great rulers left but at the time of rome parthians were a strong empire with steppe tactics which the Romans didn't know how to counter.

𝑺𝑨𝑼𝑫🇸🇦 :

Hama :

It was median empire where did you bring persia? Persia never existed as an empire

SgtPossum :

This video operates on the false assumption that the Romans or Persians ever intended to conquer each other (in the Parthian-Sasanian periods, the Achaemenids tried). In reality they fought limited wars over tangible goals, with varying success. Alexander the Great was all about conquest without regard for the future except as regarded his legacy. The Romans, and even more so the Byzantines, had other priorities.

idkman :

Btw Parthians defeated alexander army

®hoali⁹ :

Most underated Empire ever

✝︎𝘓𝘦𝘰. 𝘋𝘪𝘩 𝘝𝘪𝘯𝘤𝘪✝︎ :

notice how only trajan got a lil bit