04-27-2004, 04:13 PM
You forgot about the Parthians. Perhaps you overlooked them because they're so familiar to romanophiles and thus seem more prosaic. But remember that neither empire ever seemed to really be able to inflict a final defeat on the other.<br>
<br>
I forget where, but I remember reading somewhere that the wars between Rome and Parthia/ Sassanid Persia were like a fight between a whale and an elephant; neither could really seem to come to grips with the other outside their own element. The legions just didn't have the right weapon mix or tactical system for defeating the horse-archers and the Persians just didn't have the seige warfare capabilities, naval capabilities and ability to hold ground that would be necessary to conquer Rome.<br>
<br>
All of which points to the fact that "best" has to be seen in the light of a specific strategic/ tactical/ operational situation. It may be a cop-out, but I would venture to say that each one of these four empires was the best army in the world at the time... for coping with their own unique military challenges. <p></p><i></i>
<br>
I forget where, but I remember reading somewhere that the wars between Rome and Parthia/ Sassanid Persia were like a fight between a whale and an elephant; neither could really seem to come to grips with the other outside their own element. The legions just didn't have the right weapon mix or tactical system for defeating the horse-archers and the Persians just didn't have the seige warfare capabilities, naval capabilities and ability to hold ground that would be necessary to conquer Rome.<br>
<br>
All of which points to the fact that "best" has to be seen in the light of a specific strategic/ tactical/ operational situation. It may be a cop-out, but I would venture to say that each one of these four empires was the best army in the world at the time... for coping with their own unique military challenges. <p></p><i></i>
