It's a painting by Graham Sumner of a third century AD cavalryman and is included in his book ROMAN WARRIORS. I've known Graham for a while and all his illustrations are based on extensive research. I wrote the foreword to the book and he was kind enough to give me the original painting.
@@AdrianGoldsworthytheAuthor thank you very much for the reply. Graham Sumner is a genuine artist, indeed. It reminded me a painting of Lucien Rousselot.
fantastic im from iran im glad i found this book its the realistic and somewhat tragic aprroach pragmatic someone needed to do the subject justice it deserved the thing that makes the culture to survive is not hard power it is soft power even after conquest or colonising althought soft power has a firm foot on reality called hard power the invisible base that supports everything so that it can develop it self and maintain its influence
@@TWOCOWS1 nope it might be that he isnt aware of it but arabs are not across the persian gulf have always connected culturally and trade relations just like mediteranean so for even for arabs this term is offensive ofcourse gulf family autocracies disagree with their populations and spend pr money and create fake history without iran being part of anything which is hard if you have lived there for 2500 years to delete history
Fascinating. Some quick questions: How much did the Sassanians know about the Achaemenids? Our sources for the Achaemenids are in Greek. And the centuries later Shahnameh records a very legendary and mythical account of early Persian history. Did the Sassanians only have the myths mentioned in the Shahnameh, or did they have a greater understanding of their true heritage? Similarly do we know what they thought of the Seleucids? And did the later Sassanians have a strong idea of Parthian history or did it become mythical too? Is our lack of Persian sources due to them being lost, destroyed and not copied. Or is it due to a lack of a strong literary tradition among Persians save for religious texts?
These are hard questions to answer. Greco Roman sources present both Parthians and Sassanians as laying claim to the entirety of the old Achaemenid empire, although as a negotiating position more than anything else. However, none of the surviving Sassanian inscriptions, monuments etc make direct reference to the Achaemenids. On the other hand, some are sighted next to still standing Achaemenid monuments, which does suggest that the older empire was invoked, even if in a vague, highly idealised sense. I discuss all this more in the book, but the evidence does not allow a firm answer. The Arsacid Pathians fought the Seleucids with considerable success, and obviously Seleucia and other Seleucid foundations remained and kept distinctly Greek laws, customs for a long time. The Sasanians did manipulate the historical memory so that in the later Medieval tradition, the Parthian dynasty had fewer kings and lasted about half the time it really lasted. Lack of sources primarily survival - Greco-Roman authors claim to have read some Persian records. We have so little of what was once written in the ancient world. However, it was a different society and embraced many different traditions, so much of teh record keeping may have local in focus. Hope this helps - Adrian
Dr. Goldworthy, you speek brilliantly on history of Persia and Rome. And yet, you choose to refer to the 2300 year old name of the Persian Gulf as "Arabian Gulf" (something that the British government cooked up in 1952 when they were diplomatically fighting the Persians over the ownership of the Iranian oil, and later Nasser of Egypt picked it up and ran away with it as an element to support his Pan-Arabist new ideas). Your choice of the name is unbecoming of a historian of your caliber to fall for such a political nomenclatura. Would you call Italian Penninsula "Franch Penninsula" if the French got the upper economic and political power and renamed it, or would you honor historty and the Romans' historical tradition? Unless, of course, you are planning to teach in one of the oil-rich sheikdoms, in which case, you should indeed change history to match their prefernce and call it Arabian Gulf. Sometimes, job and salary necessities overwhelm other priorities
Very good book but as you know the Sassanians referred to themselves as Iranians . would it be too much to ask you and other historians to do the same ?
Ancient Iran, historically known as Persia, was the dominant nation of western Asia for over twelve centuries, with three successive native dynasties-the Achaemenid, the Parthian, and the Sasanian. source: wiki
Love the book. Glad I can get it on audible in the USA now.
I have this preordered in Canada ! Excited for its release! Your book on Alexander the Great "Philip and Alexander" is one of my favourites!
Where did you order it from?
@@qboxer I got it from our Canadian bookstore, Indigo
Nice depiction behind the speaker.
It's a painting by Graham Sumner of a third century AD cavalryman and is included in his book ROMAN WARRIORS. I've known Graham for a while and all his illustrations are based on extensive research. I wrote the foreword to the book and he was kind enough to give me the original painting.
@@AdrianGoldsworthytheAuthor thank you very much for the reply.
Graham Sumner is a genuine artist, indeed. It reminded me a painting of Lucien Rousselot.
Please feel free to refer to South Wales as Extreme Western Fujian Province in case the Chinese decide to support your publications.
fantastic im from iran im glad i found this book its the realistic and somewhat tragic aprroach pragmatic someone needed to do the subject justice it deserved
the thing that makes the culture to survive is not hard power it is soft power even after conquest or colonising althought soft power has a firm foot on reality called hard power the invisible base that supports everything so that it can develop it self and maintain its influence
Is it important to you that he calls your gulf, the "Arabian Gulf"?
@@TWOCOWS1 nope it might be that he isnt aware of it but arabs are not across the persian gulf have always connected culturally and trade relations just like mediteranean so for even for arabs this term is offensive ofcourse gulf family autocracies disagree with their populations and spend pr money and create fake history without iran being part of anything which is hard if you have lived there for 2500 years to delete history
Fascinating.
Some quick questions:
How much did the Sassanians know about the Achaemenids?
Our sources for the Achaemenids are in Greek. And the centuries later Shahnameh records a very legendary and mythical account of early Persian history.
Did the Sassanians only have the myths mentioned in the Shahnameh, or did they have a greater understanding of their true heritage? Similarly do we know what they thought of the Seleucids? And did the later Sassanians have a strong idea of Parthian history or did it become mythical too?
Is our lack of Persian sources due to them being lost, destroyed and not copied. Or is it due to a lack of a strong literary tradition among Persians save for religious texts?
These are hard questions to answer. Greco Roman sources present both Parthians and Sassanians as laying claim to the entirety of the old Achaemenid empire, although as a negotiating position more than anything else. However, none of the surviving Sassanian inscriptions, monuments etc make direct reference to the Achaemenids. On the other hand, some are sighted next to still standing Achaemenid monuments, which does suggest that the older empire was invoked, even if in a vague, highly idealised sense. I discuss all this more in the book, but the evidence does not allow a firm answer.
The Arsacid Pathians fought the Seleucids with considerable success, and obviously Seleucia and other Seleucid foundations remained and kept distinctly Greek laws, customs for a long time.
The Sasanians did manipulate the historical memory so that in the later Medieval tradition, the Parthian dynasty had fewer kings and lasted about half the time it really lasted.
Lack of sources primarily survival - Greco-Roman authors claim to have read some Persian records. We have so little of what was once written in the ancient world. However, it was a different society and embraced many different traditions, so much of teh record keeping may have local in focus.
Hope this helps - Adrian
@@AdrianGoldsworthytheAuthor Thank you for taking the time to answer my questions
Wat vos biggest difrenses betvin Mycenaean en new greeks vos dai saim pipiol or difen enting grupp
Plis du video bot Seleucus ris en fall History
Dr. Goldworthy, you speek brilliantly on history of Persia and Rome. And yet, you choose to refer to the 2300 year old name of the Persian Gulf as "Arabian Gulf" (something that the British government cooked up in 1952 when they were diplomatically fighting the Persians over the ownership of the Iranian oil, and later Nasser of Egypt picked it up and ran away with it as an element to support his Pan-Arabist new ideas). Your choice of the name is unbecoming of a historian of your caliber to fall for such a political nomenclatura. Would you call Italian Penninsula "Franch Penninsula" if the French got the upper economic and political power and renamed it, or would you honor historty and the Romans' historical tradition? Unless, of course, you are planning to teach in one of the oil-rich sheikdoms, in which case, you should indeed change history to match their prefernce and call it Arabian Gulf. Sometimes, job and salary necessities overwhelm other priorities
Vos not phartian nomadic grupp from sentrol Asia en sassanid parsinan pipol
Very good book but as you know the Sassanians referred to themselves as Iranians . would it be too much to ask you and other historians to do the same ?
Ancient Iran, historically known as Persia, was the dominant nation of western Asia for over twelve centuries, with three successive native dynasties-the Achaemenid, the Parthian, and the Sasanian. source: wiki