What are different between the Roman Empire and the iranian empire? Give two difference?

Question

Answer

Differences between the Roman Empire and the Iranian Empire

Geographical Location: One of the major differences between the Roman Empire and the Iranian Empire is their geographical location. The Roman Empire was located in the western part of the world while the Iranian Empire was in the eastern part of the world.

Religion: Another significant difference between the two empires is their religion. The Roman Empire followed polytheism, which means they worshipped many gods and goddesses. On the other hand, the Iranian Empire followed Zoroastrianism, which is a monotheistic religion that believes in one God.

Geographical Location

The Roman Empire was located in the western part of the world and covered most of Europe, parts of Africa, and the Middle East. The empire was surrounded by the Mediterranean Sea, which made it easier for them to trade with other countries. However, the empire was vulnerable to attack from other empires due to its vast borders.

The Iranian Empire, also known as the Persian Empire, was located in the eastern part of the world and covered most of modern-day Iran, Iraq, and parts of Central Asia. The empire was surrounded by mountains and deserts, which made it difficult for invaders to attack them. However, the empire was not able to trade as easily as the Roman Empire due to its location.

Religion

The Roman Empire followed polytheism, which means they worshipped many gods and goddesses. The most important gods were Jupiter, Neptune, and Mars. The Romans believed that these gods controlled different aspects of their lives such as war, love, and the sea. The Romans also believed in the afterlife and had a complex system of gods and goddesses that ruled over it.

The Iranian Empire followed Zoroastrianism, which is a monotheistic religion that believes in one God. The most important aspect of Zoroastrianism is the belief in the struggle between good and evil. Zoroastrians believe that there is a constant battle between the forces of good and the forces of evil, and that it is their duty to help the forces of good win. They also believe in the afterlife, where the good are rewarded and the evil are punished.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the Roman Empire and the Iranian Empire were two very different empires with distinct differences. The Roman Empire was located in the western part of the world and followed polytheism, while the Iranian Empire was located in the eastern part of the world and followed Zoroastrianism. These differences in geography and religion had a significant impact on the way these empires developed and functioned.

Answer

Roman Empire:

Roman empire extended from Spain to Syria along the Mediterranean.
It had more of a diverse population in looking into its geographical expanse . It was characterised by many cultures but had common government with single ruler/emperor.
Greek and latin languages were used for adminstrative purposes.
Iranian empire:
It controlled major part of the Caspian sea, large parts of Afghanistan and eastern Arabia.
The Parthians and Sasanians dynasties,ruled over the people of Iran. It was not as diverse as the Roman empire.
People spoke Persian language

Answer

The early Roman Empire (traditionally 27 BCE - 284 CE) is known as the Principate because the emperor’s title throughout the period was “princeps” (first citizen). This reflected the emperors’ increasingly unconvincing claim to be ruling on behalf of, and in concert with, the Senate. In reality, of course, the emperors always had almost absolute power, founded on their control of the legions - but since they were still based in Rome, most thought it worthwhile to mollify the Roman aristocracy by paying lip service to the Senate.

Senators did fill an important role, however, by serving as governors of the proconsular (inner) provinces and as officers in the legions - a handy way of making the Empire’s wealthiest and most powerful men part of the imperial system. The emperors personally controlled (through their legates) the frontier provinces, and thus the legions stationed there.

The provinces, both imperial and senatorial, were rather loosely governed, since the Romans made cities responsible for most of the routine tasks of government.

The late Roman Empire (post 284) was more autocratic and bureaucratic than its predecessor. The emperor became a remote, semi-divine figure at the center of a large court. The fiction of senatorial power was discarded, and emperors flaunted their control of the legions. After Constantine, emperors claimed a close relationship with the hierarchy and theology of the Christian church - an association that lent a new symbolic dimension to their authority, but periodically embroiled them in theological disputes.

The provinces, now subdivided for administrative convenience, were much more closely governed. Tasks formerly relegated to the councils of provincial cities were now assigned to members of a large and formidable bureaucracy, which was charged with collecting the taxes needed to sustain a larger and more centralized government.

The grand narrative for the Roman Empire, then, is from Republican pretensions to outright military autocracy, and from a city-based system of provincial administration to one much more centralized and bureaucratic.

Persia’s development paralleled Rome’s in interesting ways.

From 247 BCE to 224 CE, Persia was controlled by the Arsacid Dynasty (Parthians). Originally members of a semi-nomadic confederacy, the Parthians established a loosely-organized kingdom, in which individual nobles and local dynasts had a great deal of independence. Most Parthian kings seem to have left these regional potentates free to govern their provinces as they saw fit, so long as they remitted taxes and (more importantly) sent soldiers in time of war.

The Parthian Empire was probably most unified, in fact, when it was at war, since major campaigns allowed the kings to bring much of the nobility (which formed the core of Parthia’s famous heavy cavalry) temporarily under their command.

As might be expected in such a decentralized state, civil wars were frequent - a circumstance that allowed the Romans to frequently intervene in Parthian politics. Although the Parthians did win a few spectacular victories against the Romans (Carrhae in 53 BCE is the most famous), their Empire was not well-equipped to fight long wars, and so tended to lose its conflicts with Rome. Trajan famously conquered the Parthian heartland, and several other Roman commanders sacked the capital.

In the early third century CE, the Parthians were replaced by the Sassanids.

Though much more aggressive than the Parthians, and considerably better at marshaling large and cohesive armies, the Sassanids initially ruled a relatively decentralized empire. Gradually, however, and apparently inspired by the example of Rome, the Sassanids created an impressively centralized state. The most important figure in this development was Khosrau I (r. 531–79), who imposed a uniform system of taxation, established a true standing army, and (like his predecessors) asserted Zoroastrianism as the official and one true religion of the Empire.

Similar Humanities/Arts Doubts

What are the basic differences between Roman and Iranian empires ?

Top Courses for Humanities/ArtsView all

Chapter Notes for Humanities

NCERT Books & Solutions for Humanities

Online MCQ Tests for Humanities

Short & Long Question Answers for Humanities

Geography Class 11

Top Courses for Humanities/Arts

Top Courses for Humanities/Arts

Suggested Free Tests

Related Content

Humanities Courses

Other Courses

How To Prepare?

Other Exams

Company