11-27-2019, 07:13 PM
"No, Parthian was systematically defeated and eventually lost control of their own empire. Romans arrived to control Sinagara, Anatha and Hatra, advancing the border around 500 kilometers. Something similar for Dacia."
Does this apply to the Parthian Empire in the First Century (0-100 AD)? I'm trying to put together a plausible scenario of the situation in Germania from 0-100 AD.
I know the Romans had some struggles with the Parthians over Armenia:
This struggle for Armenia reached a new high point under Vologases I. Neither the Parthians nor the Romans succeeded in gaining a definitive victory and in 63 Vologases and the Roman emperor Nero reached an agreement that provided a solution:
the Parthian dynasty of the Arsacids would rule in Armenia, but as vassals of Rome .
Following a peace treaty, Tiridates I traveled to Rome (63 AD). In Rome the Roman emperor Nero ceremoniously crowned him king of Armenia. After Tiridates' coronation a long period of peace between Parthia and Rome ensued.
Beginning with the reign of Tiridates, Parthia would retain control over Armenia through the Arsacid Dynasty of Armenia. Even after the fall of the Parthian Empire, the Arsacid line lived on through the Armenian kings.
If I'm correctly, the decline of the Parthian Empire started after 100 AD.
"the Romans could - and did- deny them the use of their land to subdue them"
Didn't (the threat of) Roman aggression allowed leaders (like Arminius, Marbod and Julius Civilis) to unite the Germanic tribes into larger groups that presented a real threat at the Roman borders. I think there was a causal relation between the Roman aggressive/passive behavior in Germania and the frequency and intensity of Germanic raids and/or uprisings.
These are just my thoughts and I enjoy learning from everyone. Please let me know your opinions and share your thoughts
P.S. I can't seem to change my signature ...
Does this apply to the Parthian Empire in the First Century (0-100 AD)? I'm trying to put together a plausible scenario of the situation in Germania from 0-100 AD.
I know the Romans had some struggles with the Parthians over Armenia:
This struggle for Armenia reached a new high point under Vologases I. Neither the Parthians nor the Romans succeeded in gaining a definitive victory and in 63 Vologases and the Roman emperor Nero reached an agreement that provided a solution:
the Parthian dynasty of the Arsacids would rule in Armenia, but as vassals of Rome .
Following a peace treaty, Tiridates I traveled to Rome (63 AD). In Rome the Roman emperor Nero ceremoniously crowned him king of Armenia. After Tiridates' coronation a long period of peace between Parthia and Rome ensued.
Beginning with the reign of Tiridates, Parthia would retain control over Armenia through the Arsacid Dynasty of Armenia. Even after the fall of the Parthian Empire, the Arsacid line lived on through the Armenian kings.
If I'm correctly, the decline of the Parthian Empire started after 100 AD.
"the Romans could - and did- deny them the use of their land to subdue them"
Didn't (the threat of) Roman aggression allowed leaders (like Arminius, Marbod and Julius Civilis) to unite the Germanic tribes into larger groups that presented a real threat at the Roman borders. I think there was a causal relation between the Roman aggressive/passive behavior in Germania and the frequency and intensity of Germanic raids and/or uprisings.
These are just my thoughts and I enjoy learning from everyone. Please let me know your opinions and share your thoughts
P.S. I can't seem to change my signature ...
Thomas Overduin
"Everything we hear is an opinion, not a fact. Everything we see is a perspective, not the truth"
- Marcus Aurelius, or someone else ...
"Everything we hear is an opinion, not a fact. Everything we see is a perspective, not the truth"
- Marcus Aurelius, or someone else ...
