I cannot thank you enough for taking the time to entertain and reply to my questions, I didn't expect an hour long video at all, its a very welcome surprise.
As I'm still catching up to get through all your books, I'm now on the Punic Wars. A comparison of the Phoenicians versus the Persians as grand antagonists of the Romans would be interesting. Arguably, measured by duration of their conflicts, no other entities came close. Apart from Romans against themselves...
It strikes me that the feudal system is good for being able to produce well-trained well-armed warriors who live off their subsistence level tenants and are able to devote their lives to training. However Adrian suggests there are arguments against this being the case and I would be interested in that.
Hi Since Prof. Goldsworthy did an 1hour video replying to question in the comments I am going to try my luck here :) My question relates to Phillip II and Alexander the Great of Macedon and their handling with the greek city states. I watched recently a video course (The teaching company) on Alexander made by prof. Kenneth W. Harl and in that course he asserts that Phillip II had a better understanding of greek politics and sensabilities, than Alexander; who was very heavy handed with them (eg sack of Thebes) So my question is: is this claim the more accurate portrail of Alexander? What was the role of the League of Corinth (Hellenic League) in the macedonian monarchy under Philip II, Alexander? How was greece (essentialy south of thessaly) viewed by the Diadochoi? What was their interaction like? A bit convulated questions, I know, but maybe an inspiration for a future video In conclusion, great work with your youtube channel and books
I would infer from the increase of such wealthy warriors a land ownership reform under the later Parthians and Sassanian dynasties - possibly with roots in the Seleukid empire. If we take the feudal model from medieval Europe these men must have had significant land holdings and income in order to train and equip themselves in this manner.
I love your lectures, Doc. Really educational and historically acurte. This is a far cry from most other history and science vlogs. May I suggest something: since there is precious little of correct historical material on TH-cam on Eran (various dyansties, from the Kurshans and Central Asia, to Parthia and Persia, it would gather tens of thousands of followers if you produced more on that area of the world than mostly Roman. Rome and its material are copiously covered by other Western scholars (good and bad), but not the area to the east, that you are so good at. Just a suggestion
Why don't we have more written sources on the Persians? Didn't the Sassinads & Parthians come after the Helenistic kingdoms? They should have had a tradition of putting down a history of their kingdoms.
They did but many sources have not survived. There is not much secular history covered by Middle Persian sources, a lot of what is known is written by Arabs after the conquest of Persia
Who would the Persians need cataphracts for except for Romans? It would be of limited use against the steppe nomads and against some of their population, e.g. Khorasan and Transoxiana. Surely, against their other enemies, the lightly armed steppe nomads, light cavalry would be more suitable.
The heaviest cavalry were actually developed and used by the steppe peoples, specifically the Sarmatians and Sogdians. Since (as a general rule) most cultures spend most of their time fighting people like them, and the steppe cultures used heavy cataphracts against each other, I would guess that cataphracts were actually very effective against light cavalry.
@dale6947 later Mongols were able to defeat armies equipped with full plate armor and withstand full cavalry charges by knights in Russia and Eastern Europe.
@@WagesOfDestruction Yes, and the Mongols were also later defeated in battle by Europeans, no army or way of fighting is undefeatable. In the Battle of Dorylaeum, a larger horse archer army was caught and defeated by a smaller heavy cavalry detachment, so light cavalry were not untouchable for heavy cavalry.
@@Kestrel-777 Well I could quote that during the Arab conquest of Persia, the Arab light cavalry defeated Sassanian Persian forces with their cataphracts. I can see the pluses and minuses of light and heavy cavalry, but it appears to me that if I have a spot like a city or an infantry army, I can see how heavy cavalry can be effective against light. So, I could see how cataphracts would be useful against Romans and Persian rebel forces, but I am at a loss to see other than what the Persian cataphracts would be useful against. Remember, cataphract is much dearer than light cavalry.
@@WagesOfDestruction My point was that heavy cavalry was used the most by the Persians who often fought the nomads and the nomads themselves, who also mostly fought other nomads. You may think that cataphracts would be useless against nomadic light cavalry, but clearly the people who were actually fighting them thought differently.
Someone who typed in the comments on TH-cam just got a 56 minute video response from Adrian Goldsworthy. Shoot your shot, fellas.
I cannot thank you enough for taking the time to entertain and reply to my questions, I didn't expect an hour long video at all, its a very welcome surprise.
he is awesome
You are the best historian speaker I’ve heard I can’t stop listening
As I'm still catching up to get through all your books, I'm now on the Punic Wars. A comparison of the Phoenicians versus the Persians as grand antagonists of the Romans would be interesting. Arguably, measured by duration of their conflicts, no other entities came close. Apart from Romans against themselves...
Yes! Us plebeians demand to see Augustus and Artemisia!
It strikes me that the feudal system is good for being able to produce well-trained well-armed warriors who live off their subsistence level tenants and are able to devote their lives to training. However Adrian suggests there are arguments against this being the case and I would be interested in that.
A major part of Roman History that never gets covered. Thanks!
Ha my cat is called Augustus the other is Ceasar..i used to have one called Cicero:)
As long as you don't call them Cato and Cartago😂
Thank you Dr Goldsworthy! Your videos are the highlight of my week :)
Mr. Goldsworthy - any chance you will be planning for a book signing in Chicago, USA in the future?
Hi
Since Prof. Goldsworthy did an 1hour video replying to question in the comments I am going to try my luck here :)
My question relates to Phillip II and Alexander the Great of Macedon and their handling with the greek city states.
I watched recently a video course (The teaching company) on Alexander made by prof. Kenneth W. Harl and in that course he asserts that Phillip II had a better understanding of greek politics and sensabilities, than Alexander; who was very heavy handed with them (eg sack of Thebes)
So my question is: is this claim the more accurate portrail of Alexander? What was the role of the League of Corinth (Hellenic League) in the macedonian monarchy under Philip II, Alexander?
How was greece (essentialy south of thessaly) viewed by the Diadochoi? What was their interaction like?
A bit convulated questions, I know, but maybe an inspiration for a future video
In conclusion, great work with your youtube channel and books
Brilliant. This is the exact video I've wanted to see.
I would infer from the increase of such wealthy warriors a land ownership reform under the later Parthians and Sassanian dynasties - possibly with roots in the Seleukid empire.
If we take the feudal model from medieval Europe these men must have had significant land holdings and income in order to train and equip themselves in this manner.
Thank you Sir
I love your lectures, Doc. Really educational and historically acurte. This is a far cry from most other history and science vlogs. May I suggest something: since there is precious little of correct historical material on TH-cam on Eran (various dyansties, from the Kurshans and Central Asia, to Parthia and Persia, it would gather tens of thousands of followers if you produced more on that area of the world than mostly Roman. Rome and its material are copiously covered by other Western scholars (good and bad), but not the area to the east, that you are so good at. Just a suggestion
As an iranian persian this makes me proud🇮🇷
love it!
Just ordered the book! Was also wondering if you have a top 10 emperor list (east and west combined)?
Thank u
wow, this is gonna be good :)
Why don't we have more written sources on the Persians? Didn't the Sassinads & Parthians come after the Helenistic kingdoms? They should have had a tradition of putting down a history of their kingdoms.
They did but many sources have not survived. There is not much secular history covered by Middle Persian sources, a lot of what is known is written by Arabs after the conquest of Persia
I had a beautiful orange tabby girl named Artemisia.😌
Who would the Persians need cataphracts for except for Romans? It would be of limited use against the steppe nomads and against some of their population, e.g. Khorasan and Transoxiana. Surely, against their other enemies, the lightly armed steppe nomads, light cavalry would be more suitable.
The heaviest cavalry were actually developed and used by the steppe peoples, specifically the Sarmatians and Sogdians. Since (as a general rule) most cultures spend most of their time fighting people like them, and the steppe cultures used heavy cataphracts against each other, I would guess that cataphracts were actually very effective against light cavalry.
@dale6947 later Mongols were able to defeat armies equipped with full plate armor and withstand full cavalry charges by knights in Russia and Eastern Europe.
@@WagesOfDestruction Yes, and the Mongols were also later defeated in battle by Europeans, no army or way of fighting is undefeatable. In the Battle of Dorylaeum, a larger horse archer army was caught and defeated by a smaller heavy cavalry detachment, so light cavalry were not untouchable for heavy cavalry.
@@Kestrel-777 Well I could quote that during the Arab conquest of Persia, the Arab light cavalry defeated Sassanian Persian forces with their cataphracts.
I can see the pluses and minuses of light and heavy cavalry, but it appears to me that if I have a spot like a city or an infantry army, I can see how heavy cavalry can be effective against light. So, I could see how cataphracts would be useful against Romans and Persian rebel forces, but I am at a loss to see other than what the Persian cataphracts would be useful against. Remember, cataphract is much dearer than light cavalry.
@@WagesOfDestruction My point was that heavy cavalry was used the most by the Persians who often fought the nomads and the nomads themselves, who also mostly fought other nomads.
You may think that cataphracts would be useless against nomadic light cavalry, but clearly the people who were actually fighting them thought differently.
always the simplest answer is the answer. because they were superior to roman that's why European imitated them which are knights