The Byzantine empire

[Phrossack]

iran did not regain their independence until after the mongols fell. before it was part of the various Arabian Caliphates.

You're forgetting the Khwarezmians, who were more or less Persian.

 

[Dachs]

Quibbling about late medieval Persian polities has little to do with "who won the Last Persian War".

The political result was a clear draw. Militarily, it is not so clear; a window of Byzantine vulnerability was taken by the Persians to score tremendous initial successes out of all proportion with any Sasanian military effort before, an effort primarily possible through Byzantine internal problems. Those internal problems were resolved, the Sasanians failed to finish their enemy off, and that enemy forced the Sasanian government to come to terms eventually. The overall picture of Byzantine military supremacy over the Sasanian empire is not in question; it is as silly a suggestion to claim that the Sasanians were militarily superior to the Byzantines overall as to claim the same of the Taliban as compared to the United States.

This does not mean that it would have been militarily and politically possible for the Byzantines to "totally defeat" the Sasanians, or occupy their territory; with small exceptions, such as Nisibis, that wasn't even desirable. The decisive element in weakening the Sasanian state and causing its political and military demise at the hands of the Caliphate was its own internal problems. The Last Persian War caused a tidal wave of civil war that wiped out most of the state's trained military forces and badly thinned the ranks of the dehgans. Arabic personal military prowess did much of the rest.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

if Byzantium was more damaged than the Sassanids, how come it was Sassanids who fell?

What Dachs said, plus this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cicilian_Gates

Its kind of a deal breaker.

 

[Phrossack]

Dachs, I seriously doubt that the Romans had the capability mostly wipe out or cripple the Sassanids within days if they utterly disregarded all consequences. Whereas the US could obliterate most of the Taliban if it cared nothing about collateral damage. The balance of power wasn't nearly that lopsided.

 

[Mathalamus]

Dachs, I seriously doubt that the Romans had the capability mostly wipe out or cripple the Sassanids within days if they utterly disregarded all consequences. Whereas the US could obliterate most of the Taliban if it cared nothing about collateral damage. The balance of power wasn't nearly that lopsided.

i dont think even the USA could wipe out the Taliban within days, even if they dont care about collateral. unless they used nuclear weapons, but that woudl wipe out their own military, and two countries wiped from the map. (the Taliban are literally everywhere in Afghanistan and Pakistan.). i think even nukes need time to deploy and launch.

 

[Dachs]

Dachs, I seriously doubt that the Romans had the capability mostly wipe out or cripple the Sassanids within days if they utterly disregarded all consequences. Whereas the US could obliterate most of the Taliban if it cared nothing about collateral damage. The balance of power wasn't nearly that lopsided.

Obviously the analogy Moderator Action: <snip for language...> because I didn't think about it for very long, even if you don't count nukes. It's more like Germany and France in 1871. But still not that great of an analogy.