lol no. You are totally wrong.

No, when you *win* a war, you get something out of it. When the Romans won their wars, they took over the territory and erased the previous civilization from existence.

Conquered territory. Tribute payments. Vassalage. That's the sign of a victory. I suppose if we go to Ancient Greece, repelling a massive invasion counts too. Bankrupting your empire, losing territory to other nations and suffering innumerable defeats in the course of a war without getting territory to show for it does not count as a victory

A draw is not when the other side returns all captives, all territory, all relics, and pays you a massive war reparation annually. If you think that is what a draw means then I am speechless. Anyway, like I said arguing about this is making me too angry so I will be stepping away.

VOTE BYZANTINE!!!

ND - the borders dis not change. Every history book I have *ever* read on this has not called it a Byzantine victory. Please, give it up

Sorry but you are just wrong.

But ND, Byzantium is garbage in civ. Explain THAT!

Okay, re-reading some of my notes from that class, several authors referred to it as a Phyrric victory. Not solely sue to the cost of the war (and as I said, the Byzantines lost much in the war) but due to the fact that in their revelry, the Byzantines stopped paying the border tribes in Arabia tribute. Which in turn led to the Arabs taking them by unawares.

Regardless, Achaemenid Persia was a much greater empire. They didn't affect the modern world as much as the Byzantines simply due to the fact that one empire ended 2200 years ago. the other ended 570 years ago. That's a pretty monumental difference in time.

I mean, the time difference is enough that I will contend that Byzantium is not an ancient empire at all, but a medieval one

But at the same time, the Achaemenids helped unify the area to be more Persian, and thus paved the way for later empires to think of themselves as Persian.

Byzantine made it in by the idea that the Byzantine Empire started when Theodosius gave Rome to his two sons on his death bed in 395, just 5 years before the cutoff for this tournament. Even though the Byzantines weren't officially independent until Zeno inadvertently caused the final destruction of his sister empire in the West.

The above described event taking place after the cutoff of course.

I can't resist sorry.

@Vashta: "But ND, Byzantium is garbage in civ. Explain THAT!"

-No clue what that refers too. Is that some stupid game? This has nothing to do with that.

"Okay, re-reading some of my notes from that class, several authors referred to it as a Phyrric victory."

-Thanks for admitting that you were wrong. By the way Ancient Persia was a failed state that lasted a couple hundred years, lost to a much smaller power, virtually left no records, and got supplanted by a Greek dynasty that ruled for three hundred years (Seleucids).

"I mean, the time difference is enough that I will contend that Byzantium is not an ancient empire at all, but a medieval one"

-It met the criteria for this tournament and the GM accepted it.

"But at the same time, the Achaemenids helped unify the area to be more Persian, and thus paved the way for later empires to think of themselves as Persian."

-Wrong the successor state to the Ancient Persia was ruled by Greeks. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seleucid_Empire

"Byzantine made it in by the idea that the Byzantine Empire started when Theodosius gave Rome to his two sons on his death bed in 395, just 5 years before the cutoff for this tournament. "

-Yep it met the cutoff.

The Ancient Persian empire isn't even close the BYZ empire on any metric known to man. I think some people are just trolling me and think this is funny.

IT's late but each of my quotes was in response to one of the Persia people.

But Persian culture broke free of its minor donain such that Persian culture could assert itself in any empire, as when it took over the Hellenists through the Parthians. Persian culture did not die just because there were Greeks there, in much the same way that Egyptian culture did not die under the Ptolemies.

Onto some pluses about Persia.

1) It created the world's first road and postal system. Truly uniting the largest empire in the world up until that time

2) It was a successful centralized bureaucratic empire, having local governors (satraps) report to a central head of state. Not only was it the first empire to run on this (at the time revolutionary) model, but they did it successfully until the years of the empire's collapse. The Byzantines ran on a much similar system, though less successfully. There was more corruption in that empire, and their local governors and generals had a tendency to come back to Constantinople, kill the emperor, and proclaim themselves consuls.

3) The Persians immensely influenced Greek culture and customs, and Cyrus the Great was one of the most revered figures by Alexander the Great.

4) they built one of the seven wonders of the ancient world

I just don't know where you're coming from that it was a failed state. Darius III was a poor leader and worse general. But one bad ruler does not a civilization's reputation make. Case in point: Byzantium.

Actually the Egyptian culture did vanish. It was conquered by Alexander - Ptolemies, then was a Roman state until around 600 when it fell during the Muslim Conquests and it never returned to pre-Ptolemy identity.

1) Okay, the Byzantine's also had a road system. They also constructed many engineering marvels. Such as the Hagia Sophia.

2) Are you telling me that the Byzantine's didn't have a centralized Imperial bureaucracy? It was probably the most renown of ancient history.

3) And how much did the Byzantine's influence early Russia, Balkans? Asia Minor? The Middle East through religion, politics, and culture? Their religion and split with Catholicism still is a major world defining religious event!

4) See Constantinople, case in point.

Byzantine Empire utterly dominates and dwarfs the Ancient Persians. It is embarrassing and sad that they are going to lose to such a failed state.

"3) And how much did the Byzantine's influence early Russia, Balkans? Asia Minor? The Middle East through religion, politics, and culture? Their religion and split with Catholicism still is a major world defining religious event"
At first yeah. But the world got over the Byzantines. They were losing influence over time. People split with the Byzantines to do their own thing.

"1) Okay, the Byzantine's also had a road system. They also constructed many engineering marvels. Such as the Hagia Sophia"
That would be all well and good if they did the road thing all their own. But nope. They stole that idea from their predecessors. The Ancient Persians had no such predecessors.

Are you really claiming that no one built a road before the Persians? LOL. That's funny.

Not to the extent of the Persians in their area.

oh but someone did it before them so it doesn't count. That's what you just said to me.

The Byzantines didn't build their own roads.

ND - the Persians built the first road network to connect an empire. That's a fact. They built the first postal system. That's a fact.

I'm not claiming that the Byzantines didn't have any of these things. I'm saying the Persians either were the first to implement them or were more successful in doing so than the Byzantines. It's the difference between the US making a nuclear weapon in 1945 and the North Koreans finally doing so in 2200. Yeah they both did it, but by the time the other nation got around to it, it was kinda old news.

Can you please tell me this. How was Persia more of a failed state than an empire that inherited it's territory, but within 250 years had lost 2/3rds of it to the Muslims and forever after was renowned for corruption, assassination attempts and somehow managing to survive invasion after invasion because the Romans had built really, really good walls around Constantinople.

Also, Prado is right. When the Byzantine empire came into existence, there was an extensive road system already in place. You cannot give them credit for that. It belongs to the Romans, like much of the Byzantines legacy

##GM NOTE : votes are only counted with a ## format. So please make sure to vote correctly for my counting purposes. This has been a superbly interesting discussion. I thought this was easy for me but now I'm really considering both which is what this tournament is about. Great job guys keep it up.

@Goldfinger:

1) So what. Are you going to tell me that Media, Babylon, Ancient Egypt, Assyria didn't have a road? The Eastern Romans were master engineers. The Byzantines improved upon the existing infrastructure. They improved the walls of Constantinople that held until 1453, they built roads, they had the Hagia Sophia, etc, etc. They had one of the most efficient and massive imperial state bureaucracies of the ancient world.

2) They beat the Sassanian Empire during the Roman-Sassanian Wars. Yes they did. They beat the Goths during the Gothic War and retook Rome. They beat the Vandals and retook North Africa. They were well on their way to restoring the greatness of the ancient Roman Empire.

3) Sure, during the Muslim Conquests they lost the Middle East, Egypt, and North Africa. But, they held Asia Minor, Balkans and portions of Italy. During the Macedonian Dynasty they even managed to briefly retake parts of the Middle East in Syria. The Macedonian Dynasty represents a RESURGENCE after Emperor Herculian. Herculian lost territory after winning a very costly war against the Sassanian Empire. Let's compare. The Byzantine's defeated the Sassanian Empire, but were weak because of the war. The Muslim Conquests occurred and the Byzantine's lost territory. The Sassanian Empire was blown to smithereens and utterly conquered and vanished by the Muslims. Hundreds of years later the Macedonian Dynasty of the Byzantine Empire would push into these lands again and regain territory. The Sassanian Empire ceased to exist. CEASED TO EXIST. They had no resurgence. They were utterly conquered. Much like their ancient Persian ancestors who were again utterly conquered by the Macedonians. They too had no RESURGENCE. The Byzantine's did and they had a resurgence against the Muslims while also fighting the Bulgar Empire (who the Byzantine's beat into oblivion).


4. They did fall in the end but they stood for over a thousand years. By comparison the Sasanian Empire stood for about three hundred and the Ancient Persians for about one hundred and fifty years. These two empires were separated by a Greek dominated one for three hundred years. Being truthful the Seleucid Empire stood longer and was probably more advanced than either and they weren't Persian.

If we just count the time 395-1453 then the Byzantine's stood for over one thousand years. If you count the time when they were part of Ancient Rome then it is more like two thousand years. Anyone comparing two rump states that were completely annihilated within the span of three centuries (Sassanian) or one and half centuries (Ancient Persia) is totally insane to me.

*edit* Anyone comparing two rump states that were completely annihilated within the span of three centuries (Sassanian) or one and half centuries (Ancient Persia) to the Byzantine Empire is totally insane to me. This is a straight forward vote.


##VOTE BYZANTINE (come on lurkers you know I am right)

Okay, first off we must discount any and everything Roman, since Rome is a part of this contest.

Second, good point about the Sassanid's and all that. But the Sassanid's aren't part of this.

Third, you have failed to answer my question. How was Persia a failed state? As far as I am aware, it was thriving until Alexander decided to conquer it. They conquered every other ancient kingdom in the known world, successfully put down Rebellions, were the global source of wealth and knowledge (largely due to Babylon), freed the Jews (again, from Babylon).

Fourth, yes, I am telling you ancient Media, Babylonia, Assyria, etc did not have the road system the Persians built.

Fifth, that you call the Byzantine bureaucracy efficient shows me that you don't know all that much about them. Up through Justinian? Sure. But if we are to judge it as a whole over the entirety of the empire's thousand+ year history, then I will have to say the bureaucracy and structure of the government was one of the primary reasons for Byzantium's malaise.

Look, I'm not trying to knock Byzantium. Their longevity is a huge plus. Constantinople was the greatest city in the world. They somehow staved off attacks on all sides for a long time. They were the religious center for Orthodox Christianity. Lots of pluses.

And yet, the fact that so much of that success is due to Rome and just the natural progression of time and technology brings them down to the level at which I would be comfortable voting for an empire that was utterly destroyed by Alexander over them. Of course they had more written records that survived, because they had several hundred (or thousand) less years to survive than records from the Persians. And paper was more common, and there was a larger literate population. It's just, I need a much more ironclad argument than "lol, Persians were trash because lost to Alexander the Great who also conquered Greece before he conquered Persia" (or, more aptly, put down a rebellion. I forget if he accompanied his father when he conquered them)