Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: BubbaFred who wrote (119286)	11/11/2003 6:54:54 PM
From: Jim Willie CB	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

thanks, most excellent final word, vindicated / jw

To: BubbaFred who wrote (119286)	11/12/2003 12:31:24 AM
From: Nadine Carroll	Respond to of 281500

When Alexander died, the area came under the rule of Selucus and was a part of the Selucid Kingdom until it became a part of the Roman Empire in 115 B.C. After the fall of the Roman Empire, Arab armies conquered the area about 637 A.D. (the term Arab originally referred to nomadic tribes of the Arabian Peninsula Since there was no Roman Empire in 115 BC (it was still a republic) and it had not yet conquered Judea or Egypt, this source leaves a great deal to be desired for accuracy.

To: BubbaFred who wrote (119286)	11/12/2003 12:49:38 AM
From: Sun Tzu	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Unforeseen consequences of invading Mesopotamia -- Part 1 There seems to be some conflicting info on this which is probably why your source said "Conquest of Mesopotamia; extent unknown" But I am finding a lot of resources claiming Mesopotamia control under the Parthians (Persian Empire). The sequence of events seem to be fall of the first Persian empire (the Achamedian's) to Seleucids then simultaneous fall of Seleucids to both Romans and Parthians, fallowed by fall of Parthian to Sassanid (also Persian). Parthians were very fast moving warriors who could win against much larger armies. Their empire stretched more or less from India to Turkey. The interaction of Romans and Parthians is quite an interesting read which you are welcome to fallow up on the link in part 2. It seems that Rome did have control of Mesopotamia for short periods, but it never managed to subdue the empire next door which considered Mesopotamia integral to itself. So I stand by my assertion that the real resistance was from Persia and not from the local revolt. As I said the dynamics of these events are very interesting and contain lessons for today's leaders, if they are willing to see. Perhaps the two most interesting lessons are how the Romans helped create a much greater threat by weakening the Parthians. An even more important lesson has to do with the inability of both sides to settle their differences. The Romans and the Sassanids weakened each other so much that both fell to the barbarians next door. A most unimaginable thing, I must add. Sun Tzu

To: BubbaFred who wrote (119286)	11/12/2003 12:52:34 AM
From: Sun Tzu	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Rome in Mesopotamia -- Part 2 This link ancienthistory.about.com contains a good deal of info on the ancient history. For our purposes the relevant section seems to be: The relative tranquility came to an end, however, in A.D. 113, when Rome changed course, and Emperor Trajan mounted a massive invasion of Parthian territory. The Parthian king Osroes' deposing a pro-Roman king in Armenia and installing a Parthian puppet had provoked the emperor. There had, however, been similar provocations in the past, which Rome had settled calmly with a small show of force. Trajan's desire for glory was no doubt a factor, but there seems to have been method to his marching. During the last generation, Rome had slowly moved away from the client-kingdom system of border defense favored by Augustus. Under the new system, client kingdoms were annexed and made part of a network of forward defenses on favorable terrain, complete with walls, trenches, highways, and legions. In the Balkans, Trajan had already conquered the client kingdom of Dacia (Romania) and made it a Roman province. In the East, he planned to push the Parthian back east from the Euphrates and conquer northern Mesopotamia, whose hilly terrain was eminently defensible. He also annexed Armenia. The Parthian state, meanwhile, had declined considerably and could no longer mount an effective opposition to Rome. With at least eleven legions and other auxiliary troops at his disposal, Trajan was victorious everywhere, conquering Armenia, cutting through what is now Iraq, capturing Ctesiphon, and finally reaching the Persian Gulf. Carrhae had finally been avenged but only temporarily. Revolts broke out in 116, not only in newly conquered Iraq but throughout the empire. Trajan was forced to give up most of his Iraqi and Armenian conquests and to hurry westward. He died en route, a broken man. His successor Hadrian immediately abandoned the rest of Trajan's eastern conquests, allowed Armenia to return to its client-kingdom status, and made peace with Parthia. Trajan had stretched Rome's resources dangerously thin; Hadrian made the necessary correction. Unfortunately, Hadrian's realignment had dealt stability in the East a deathblow. Having shattered Parthia's post-Carrhae mystique, Trajan opened the door to new Roman adventurism in Iraq. Romans now invaded the region frequently, capturing Ctesiphon again in 165 and 198. In 199, the Emperor Septimius Severus finally got a firm hold on northern Mesopotamia, where he established a permanent defensive boundary.

To: BubbaFred who wrote (119286)	11/12/2003 12:53:09 AM
From: Sun Tzu	Respond to of 281500

Unforeseen consequences of War -- Part 3 Wars, however, often leave unintended consequences. Rome lacked the power to annex northern Mespotamia, but Roman victories undercut the prestige of the Parthian, whose collapse was a Pyrrhic victory for Rome. The new Persian state that emerged under the Sassanid dynasty in 227 was a far greater threat than its predecessor. (Following the change of dynasty, the Parthian came to be called Persians.) Where the Parthian were loosely organized, the Sassanids were centralized; while the Parthian stood on the defensive, the Sassanids moved aggressively in hopes of restoring ancient Persian glory and driving Rome from the Near East; while the Parthian threat was sporadic, the Sassanids kept up the pressure; while the Parthian were poor at siegecraft, the Sassanids were skilled in the technology of siege warfare. The Sassanids styled themselves "Kings of Kings of Iran and non-Iran," a sign of their imperial ambitions. Rome had no choice but to respond to the threat that it had unwittingly created. A prolonged Sassanid drive on Roman Syria took place during the third century A.D., when King Shapur I (241-ca. 272) posed the greatest threat to Rome. Among the great king's early achievements were driving the Romans from Armenia and extracting a humiliating ransom of half a million denarii from his foe. Antioch was attacked repeatedly and plundered in 260, the same year that Shapur crushed a Roman army at Edessa (Urfa) and captured the emperor Valerian, who died a Persian prisoner. A Persian Augustus, Shapur vigorously advertised this coup, most graphically on rock carvings near Shiraz showing the king on horseback and Valerian kneeling before him. Shapur deported hordes of Roman prisoners to Iraq and Iran; their permanent presence contributed greatly to the growing prosperity of these regions.