Allan Mallinson

An ancient stalemate may provide lessons today

History is always relevant, says Adrian Goldsworthy – and Rome’s long war with Parthia-Persia, ending in deadlock, should make Putin wary

Roman troops threaten to use a battering ram against a Parthian town. Coloured engraving, originally from an 18th-century French edition of Polybius’s Histories. [Alamy] 
issue 22 July 2023

History doesn’t have to be ‘useful’ to be compelling – witness, say, Henry VIII and his six wives. Adrian Goldsworthy, however, a considerable historian of ancient Rome as well as a prolific novelist of those times and the Napoleonic (of which there is obvious connection), is at pains to emphasise the profit to be derived from his massive, magnificent account of the 700-year conflict between Rome and Persia.

Early on, the Romans realised that Parthia-Persia had to be treated with more respect than other nations

History is valuable, he writes, because it helps us understand our own world a little better. (The corollary is also true: the intrigues and cock-ups of the past are far easier to believe by looking around at the present):

It would be absurd to claim that the study of the rivalry between Rome and Parthia-Persia shows exactly how to interpret a conflict in the 21st century. Yet there are loose parallels in the restrictions placed on warfare by both empires.

Comments

Join the debate for just $5 for 3 months

Be part of the conversation with other Spectator readers by getting your first three months for $5.

Already a subscriber? Log in