Roman-Persian Wars.

They dragged on for centuries. I'm not sure what the goals of both Rome and Persia really were. Was it a struggle to control trade routes? Or were both empires seeking to extend their power and influence? Did the Persians think that Asia Minor, Syria, Mesopotamia, and Egypt were rightfully Persian territories? Why were the Persians seemingly always able to recover from severe Roman defeats. The invasion of Trajan was one of many examples. Finally what would have been the effects of either Rome or Persia being more successful?
 

Philip

Donor
Was it a struggle to control trade routes?

Yes, but I think this might be a secondary reason.

Or were both empires seeking to extend their power and influence?

Yes. I would add that they wanted to secure their interiors as well.

Did the Persians think that Asia Minor, Syria, Mesopotamia, and Egypt were rightfully Persian territories?

Yes. At least for the Sassanids (I assume for the Parthians as well) the Achaemenid Empire established their natural boundaries.

Why were the Persians seemingly always able to recover from severe Roman defeats. The invasion of Trajan was one of many examples.

Two suggestions: First, Roman always had other problems to deal with. Second, Rome's successes usually amounted to deep raids, not complete conquest or destruction.

Finally what would have been the effects of either Rome or Persia being more successful?
Depends on when they are more successful.
 
Roman Persian Wars.

I was thinking in terms of the Persians being able to more or less permanently occupy at least eastern and central Anatolia, as well as keep Armenia under nominal control.
 
The wars happened for a number of reasons, but the base one was probably to win cheap prestige, and not for any grand geopolitical aims. The fact that they were fought on and off for SEVEN HUNDRED YEARS without any major territorial changes to me suggests that. Only when a seriously visionary leader like Trajan or Khusro II took to the helm were there major annexations- and look how long they lasted.

So yes. It was a continuous, ding-dong conflict based on local issues in Armenia and around the Euphrates, to do with trade and client states, which would periodically flare up into savage conflict due to the egos and attempts to save face by various individual Romans and Persians.
 
Really, it was about prestige and to get some money occasionally, but remember that the Persians were a silver economy, so none of that gold went into their coinage. Towards the 7th century the status quo and sort of mutual respect collapsed mirroring the centralization of the Sasanian state and the changes in the Roman state which started with Justinian. To me it always feels like the Persians were always short on cash, and the Byzantines had a lot of it. 725,000 gold coins really was not a whole lot in the grade scheme of things. Of course that all changed in the 6th and 7th centuries...
 
I was thinking in terms of the Persians being able to more or less permanently occupy at least eastern and central Anatolia, as well as keep Armenia under nominal control.

When they did temporarily do this, the ensuing conflict almost caused the societies and governments of both nations to collapse... and even when it didn't quite do that, Islam came around and finished off one of them, and fatally wounded the other (in the long term)...

Now Armenia might be possible, but the Byzantines don't want the Persians to get too close to Lazica and therefore the Black Sea.
 
The main reason both for the Roman and the Sassanid was basically to have a great coin to spend in the internal propaganda market.
Being known as the second Alexander was the secret dream of any emperor, and would make its position almost untochable by usurpers and so.
the same applies ro Sassanids
 
Top