Why do you scare people from the Persians? This is disrespectful to our history and biased😠☹️ Perrrrrsssiiiaaaannsss aaaarrreeeeeeee Coooommmmmmmiiiiiiinnnnggggggg 😱😱😱😱😱😱😱😱😱😱😱😱😱😱😱

Thank you for covering all the victories of the Romans and the Greeks against the Persians . because in history the Persians did not win or they won with heavy losses and it doesn't matter !!! It's funny

I am a fan of your history channel and channels like yours, but I am heartbroken and upset why Iranians are humiliated in historical channels and historical films while Iranians have a lot of respect for the history of other nations. We are not monsters our history is full of glorious things For example: slavery that does not exist in our history as opposed to the whole history of the West OR Unlike other nations, it is very rare for our ancestors to kill the people of the defeated countries. Instead, they migrated to Iran and gave them a new life. Sorry for my English

Was this always TTS? Did tbe aliens replace u with robots man? 🇮🇪🍿🍀

@@farshad9573 such a high sarcastic level

Marching band, nothing to see here.

That’s hilarious

Definitely a story to tell to dinner guests lol

This, right here. Is a "you win the internet today" worthy comment.

Red Wedding

These are lies. This commander failed in the battle and said that the soldiers were the reason

The so called 'Pyrrhic Victory' could've been just a Roman propaganda, and the Persians might have fared much better in actuality.

So its joke

@@ElBandito if the General was removed from office, then it was something like that, even if for a short time, a general being punished for bad display of leadership revolves around not achieving what he was supposed to.

Well said

@@nakedicarothe reason was because he couldn’t get to antioch not because he take very casualty after this battle romans pay tribute to sassanids so i wouldn’t consider useless victory

interesting take. thank you for this. I thought it was strange, being labeled as a Pyrrhic victory.

It was labeled a pyrrhic victory because the Persians didn't gain anything and suffered heavy losses. The losses which prevented their planned invasion of Syria. Hence why Azarethes was stripped of his command.

I disagree, yes sometimes he lost but when we take in to account that he wants was sent on a suicid mission to recapture Italy with I believe only 4 thousand troops and then end up taking Rome and destroying the enemy army sich was atleast dripple his sice then he earns it to be under one of the greatest Roman generals to ever exist

@@justinschauwecker Yes. It was a Pyrrhic victory according to Procopius. Which means that much is to be debated about Persian losses. This should have been a decisive victory for the Persians. Not a Pyrrhic one. Procopius is implied to have lied about the results. The other sources I’ve mentioned contradict the results of the final battle. Justinian obviously did not believe Procopius’s words and effectively fired Belisarius from his post.

@@althesian9741 not sure mate, the fact that the Persians returned home regardless of the numbers means that the defense of the realm was successful. If he had the troops and had defeated Belisarius "decisively" as you say, why not go for any territory at all, let alone fail to attempt the purpose for which they were there. Doesn't make sense, unless there remained too few troops.

Well said!

I sure hope the persians will have a long lasting empire and nothing extremely weird like a desert people onslaught brings them to an abrupt end, but that couldn't possibly happen.

@Order to be fair we did better than Byzantines in the long run. at least we still exist.

@Order kek get conquered.

@@Alex-tx2em soon the wings of Vahram and crescent of Anahita will rise over middle east and in the name of Ahura Mazda we will burn Athens once more . . . . . . . . . 😎

Ibn Al Walid be like: hey that's free real estate.

How can you say he is underrated? Where everywhere there is guys like you claiming the same, if anything he is overrated with all those defeata being justified by his own historian

@@miracleyang3048 You talk like you could do better than Belisarius

@@ssj3gotenks589 I couldn't do better than Luigi Cadorna doesn't mean he wasn't a shit general

@@miracleyang3048 He lost a few battles, so what!! The reason why he is one of many great Byzantine Generals, is because of his many campaigns to retake the capital of Carthage and Italy from the Lombards and Vandals!!

@@ssj3gotenks589 Thanks!

Yeah, Hanibal is a masterpiece. Just an amazing show.

i think the double numbers advantage may also have played a role in their advance

I think even swarths with a 2:1 numerical advantage over slightly less swarthy eastern euros should be able to make progress on a battlefield. This isn’t the 30:1 numerical advantage that a Bantu needs to fight with against real White people.

"Just losing battles" nice joke

*Romans btw

It’s true, beli was the last Roman and everyone after was a greekoid loser

Ignoramus spotted

That’s CK3 for you

lol, quite the opposite, he is one of the generals with most PR

Usually because those guys don't know half as much as they pretend to.

He lost this battle lol

He definitely gets a lot more rep than Narses and they were pretty much contemporaries in influence and activity

@@al-muwaffaq341 all great generals have lost a battle

Then again, considering how Roman armies literally killed their commander for refusing to do something they wanted in the 3rd and 4th centuries, it’s not over the boundaries of probable.

Flash Point History has a lot of good content on the Reconquista. A bit more narrative and less battley, but amazing content if you've got hours (days) to spare.

Literally persians won more battles than Romans and they still milking about romans

@@parsarustami774 are , mibini dausaro? Asan bordaye iraniaro nemizaran...

@@parsarustami774 Romans literally won more wars than persians

​​@@parsarustami774 It's a bit of shame that not many who make videos apprrciate the beauty of Iran history.

@@kafon6368 The Anastasian war, Iberian war, Lazic war All won by the Sassanids The last Sassanid Byzantine war was more like a statement and even the Byzantines lost 2/3 of their territories to the Arabs Even Belisarius, the best Byzantine general was defeated several times by the Sassanid Battle of Thannuris 528 (defeated) Battle of Mindouos 528 (defeated) Battle of Dara 530 (won) Battle of Callinicum (defeated) Battle of Nisibis (stalemate, Belisarius failed to conquer Nisibis) Siege of Sisauranon (failed to conquer the fortress) Why not talking about the Roman armies that were crushed by the Sassanids before Heraclius joined the war ? Hell, even he was heavily defeated once or twice before the Sassanids conquered Egypt Watch History Experience video Roman armies were defeated left and right One of Shapur II small armies defeated a much larger Roman army at the battle of Samarra 363 and killed emperor Julian by shoving a spear in his chest After that, the Sassanids took Armenia, 15 fortresses and western Mesopotamia Before that, he conquered Amida and even though he was forced to retreat at the battle of Singara, he returned at night and defeated emperor Constantine II in a night attack and retook his camp and the Romans were forced to retreat Shapur I defeated 3 Roman emperors and even captured one of them Each of their armies had between 60,000-70,000 men and he raided over 30 Roman cities and he had less soldiers than the Romans He won the battle of Misiche (60,000 Romans), battle of Barbalissos (60,000 Romans), battle of Edessa (70,000 Romans) and siege of Dura Europos and even plundering over 30 Roman cities all of this while always being outnumbered 2-1 His father Ardashir I defeated the Romans at the siege of Nisibis 235 and his forces raided Cappadocia and Syria and conquered Armenia Watch Yore History video about him, he also defeated two Roman armies in Mesopotamia, one were led by emperor's general and the other one was led by emperor Alexander Severus himself and both were defeated The sack of Ctesiphon isn't a big deal since it was like 2 or 3 cities away from the eastern borders of Rome And pre islamic Iranian empires had multiple capitals not just one Odenathus failed to take Ctesiphon and was defeated at the battle of Ctesiphon 263 Before Narse was defeated, he defeated Romans at the battle of Carrhae 296 and also in two other minor battles but even in minor battles he inflicted heavy casualties on the Romans and if he had won one last time, the Romans would've been completely defeated that year Odenathus didn't even fought Shapur's army in a battle he just attacked him from behind while he was already going back to Iran and still, Shapur kept most of his men, prisoners, plunders and loots He even had the time to raid Syria after this clash with Odenathus which means Odenathus forces suffered heavy casualties and couldn't stop Shapur at the time even after that clash I know you guys say Shapur lost the conquered territories but the fact is he didn't because he wasn't conquering he was just raiding The Iranians didn't went as far as the heartland of Rome but when did the Romans ? Mesopotamia was as far as they could go and it wasn't even the heartland of Iran There were a lot of Iranian kings who were present during the battles and there were a lot of times that they were victorious and Romans never could catch or kill them but they could kill one or two Roman emperors and capture one alive Emperor Valerian was captured, emperor Philip the arab was humiliated and forced to pay heavy tribute and emperor Gordian III was defeated and probably killed in battle against Shapur Yazdegerd II raided Roman cities and the Roman emperor was forced to pay him tribute Khosrow I raided the Roman territories and the Iranians raided Antioch several times Kavad I and his son Khosrow I defeated the Romans several times at three series of wars in a raw Anastasian war, Iberian war and Lazic war The Parthians gained great victories too Battle of Carrhae, Romans lost even though they outnumbered the Parthians more than 4-1 and after that, they plundered the cities of Judea, Syria, and southern Anatolia two times Mark Antony Atropatene campaign, 2/5 out of 127,000 were killed by the Parthians and the Parthians had only 50,000 The Parthians also won at the battle of Rhandeia and inflicted a heavy defeat on the Romans Trajan attacked when the Parthians were in a civil war and still lost all the conquered cities to Iranian peasant rebels and even during Trajan's invasion, the Parthians gained some victories Trajan failed to take Hatra, which avoided a total Parthian defeat. Parthian forces attacked key Roman positions, and Roman garrisons at Seleucia, Nisibis and Edessa were evicted by the local populaces The Parthians may have been defeated at the Roman Parthian war of 161-166 but they lost because of a plague that came from Kushan empire and before that, they routed Roman armies in Armenia and Syria The Parthians were also victorious in war of Caracalla and the battle of Nisibis 217 AD and the Romans were forced to pay heavy tribute Khosrow II conquered territories 3 times larger than Trajan's Trajan defeated a small Parthian army but Khosrow's generals defeated at least ten Roman army that were equal in numbers with them or even surpassed them in numbers They even took true cross from Romans The last Sassanid Byzantine war wasn't even a Roman victory it was a stalemate It doesn't even says Roman victory in English Wikipedia unlike those 3 series of wars i told you which were Persian victories Oh sure when the Romans or the Greeks or arabs win battles against Iranians (because Iran were actually weakened) it's because they are strong and did something great (and you guys ignore decades of war against Rome and civil wars) But when Iranians win and humiliate the Romans or Greeks or arabs (pre islamic) is because they were weakened and Iran only used their weakness Well it should be easy for you guys to say so anyways since most of the sources are Greek or Roman and they made a lot of excuses for their defeats Rome lost half of the battles against the Parthians and most of their battles against the Sassanids

It was pyric victory though as nothing changed and they both had heavy losses.

@@dubstepXpower so what ? They were in offensive positions although the enemy had likely twice the size of army they had . What else could you expect ?

Depending on terrain.

Thank you so much 😀

Hope you enjoyed it! Any luck with job-seeking?

If you're lazy enough to try to search for reliable sources, Wikipedia had covered about the Caucasian Kingdom of Albania (unrelated to the European Albania) and you misread Edessa, which was a city on the Mesopotamia and confuse it with Odessa, a City that is located in Ukraine

@@dominikfraaanjuan Thanks for the clarifications.

Photoshop for graphics. After Effects for animations.

Thank you)

Hmm, interesting....

Even more, the history of Iran goes back to more than 3000 years to 4000 years, because the beginning of the Achaemenid Empire was 2500 years ago, but before that there were Medes and Elamites, who are also considered as ancient Iranian civilization.