How did Trajan defeat the Parthians?

[Robert Vermaat]

Hi mars,

Please add your real name to your signature. it is a forum rule.

[L C Cinna]

Cinna, you shall know that, to Parthian, Kushan Empire was a far more dangerous enemy than Rome, the war between Kushan and Parthia lasted more than 100 years, and in east was most of Parthian's effort go, of course Parthian had to maintan defense in their west front, and when Parthian did not post real threat to Romans since since the reign of Augustus, but do you really think Romans post a real threat to Parthian before Trajan' reign ?


And you said "Rhandeia was a Roman defeat. Paetus was as incapable as Crassus was and got himself into a similar situation where he was surrounded and had to surrender still the war was won after Corbulo attacked."
first when you got defeated, of course your commander had some kind of problme, blah ! and whoa ! I read Roman history, but I DO NOT KNOW later Roman won that war after Corbulo attacked ! Actually Roman and Parthian struck a deal, so that Amenia king would come from Parthia, but he should be approved by Roman Emperor and Senate, did sound a military victory ?

you seem to completely miss my point. I didn't say the Parthians had no other problems. I know that myself. I said the Parthians were the waeker of the 2 and that was the case BECAUSE the Parthians had other problems, not only foreign enemies but seriouse problems within the empire as well. You can turn the whole thing around and say the same applies to the Romans in the 3rd century.

I don't understand why you feel attacked? As I said before I didn't try to overglorify the Romans or say that the Parthians/Sasanides were stupid or whatever. I said that the Parthians were in a weaker position and you even admit that so where's the problem?

In the other points I was speaking of Roman warfare and how they would have carried out a campaign. I said that the Romans didn't necessarily need to search for a decisive victory because they knew how to achieve their goals otherwise and I said that Roman and Parthian warfare differed. I didn't deny that a Parthian victory was possible but said that the Parthians couldn't attack the Romans in the fields if the Romans managed to keep their army together, protect their supplies and concentrate on towns and strongholds. We all know what happened when they failed to achieve these goals: Crassus defeat after losing his cavalry, Antonius defeat after losing his siege and supply train, Julianus retreat after not being able to unite the army to take Ctesiphon.

I was never saying the Parthians were stupid or could only win if the Romans acted stupid besides that no one gains a victory if no one makes msitakes in warfare in general.