Everything goes right for Crassus on his Parthian campaign

What if instead of being a disaster the Parthian campaign of Crassus goes off swimmingly. He goes thourgh Armenia instead of his otl route but even better is that the Parthian are completely unprepared for the invasion and he keeps ambushing Parthian forces and taking unprepared cities. The Generals sent against are completely incompetent and he keeps routing them. It gets so bad that he ends breaking Parthian military might for a generation. When he come to peace with Parthia he is given the empire west of the zargos which he accepts. Even attempts to rebel in the newly conquered territory never get off the ground because of bad luck like the Rebels being outed by the Romans. The conquest and pacification of Mesopotamia happens in record time.

What happens next now that Crassus like his other two triumvers is a great conqueror? Does the civil war still happen? How rich is Crassus after the conquest of Mesopotamia? What is his standing in Rome? How does it compare with the other two triumvers conquests? How much better is Rome with a pacified Mesopotamia? What the future of Rome with crassus alive and Mesopotamia conquered?

Bounus scenario: Pompey after hearing about the success of Crassus in the east decides to go on a conquering spree starting in 52 bc starting in northern Spain going thourgh Mauritania, Numidia, and finally ending in eygpt where he tries to conquer new provinces for Rome while making him self as rich as possible. These conquest are all successful but takes five years to finish and pacify. He arrives back in Rome the same time as Crassus returns from the east. What has changed in that time? What happened to the opptimites with no Pompey to turn to? What has ceasar probley been up to while his other two triumvers were off doing richer conquests? Who is now first man in Rome?
 
Last edited:
This isn't ASB. The Romans periodically overran Mesopotamia throughout the empire, though the place is really hard to defend. And Crassus' main problem seems to have been bad luck.

This completely changes the relationship between Caesar and Pompey. Either the triumverate (sp?) survives, or two of them combine against the third. The arrangement lasting a long time would be an interesting situation. Between Sulla and Agrippa no important player in Roman politics died of natural causes.
 
This isn't ASB. The Romans periodically overran Mesopotamia throughout the empire, though the place is really hard to defend. And Crassus' main problem seems to have been bad luck.

This completely changes the relationship between Caesar and Pompey. Either the triumverate (sp?) survives, or two of them combine against the third. The arrangement lasting a long time would be an interesting situation. Between Sulla and Agrippa no important player in Roman politics died of natural causes.

So massive amounts of good luck is not asb? Good.
 
So massive amounts of good luck is not asb? Good.

Unlikely =/= ASB. ASB is for actually impossible things, like teleporting continents or something.

I've always heard that it wasn't Crassus dying that was the big loss in the campaign but the death of Crassus's son, who was an up and coming politician. Assuming he also survives, that could have a major impact on Roman politics as well.
 
Unlikely =/= ASB. ASB is for actually impossible things, like teleporting continents or something.

I've always heard that it wasn't Crassus dying that was the big loss in the campaign but the death of Crassus's son, who was an up and coming politician. Assuming he also survives, that could have a major impact on Roman politics as well.

That actually makes Crassus even more dangerous by comparison to Caesar and Pompey. Crassus has a clear heir to his name, his wealth, and his political loyalties. More than that, Publius is a very competent adult capable of hitting the ground running if anything should happen to his father, and can be safely trusted to carry out political or military plans without concern that he might change sides or go rogue.
 
So Crassus marches through Armenia. Let's assume for a moment that the Armenian King Artavasdes does not betray him or sabotage him like he might have been considering doing (it was in Artavasdes's interests to have neither Rome nor Parthia to gain a decisive military edge in order to preserve Armenia's independence). Parthia isn't going to be sending incompetent generals. The Parthians seem to have been relatively well led at this period, and no doubt Monaesus Surena will be harassing Crassus (Surena, who likely was not murdered after Carrhae, is probably the Monaesus that comes up during Antony's campaign).

Now, IOTL, Monaesus actually kept up a back channel with Antony as a precautionary measure should he achieve success. So let's assume Crassus does. With the help of the Armenians, he defeats the Parthians in a series of battles in Media-Atropatene. The big question here is can he convince Artavasdes I of Media Atropatene to defect. Artavasdes was always open to the idea, though his rivalry with Armenia might make him hesitate. It's possible though that after some clear victories for Crassus, Artavasdes will defect and bring Media-Atropatene along with him.


This is probably when Monaesus Surena defects, or shortly afterward. He was likely a Mesopotamian noble and probably had estates there, so I can see a mutually beneficial deal being set up. He defects and Crassus agrees to install him as King in Mesopotamia and Babylonia. So effectively you have loose client kings in Armenia, Media-Atropatene, and Mesopotamia/Babylonia.




Now, as for what this means back home in Rome, you probably just butterflied the civil war. Crassus already had enormous influence and arguably had the strongest and most loyal faction in the city-his influance extended over many of the back benchers, those who would normally go unnoticed but still made up a large proportion of the Senate-and thus a lot of the voting power. Now IOTL many of them migrated towards Caesar's camp after his death, but obviously that doesn't happen here. He'll have an effect on the instability that gripped Rome in 52 BC (assuming he's back by then, which isn't a guarantee I guess), and rather than Pompey being appointed dictator, Crassus might try to maneuver himself to get the honor. That could set up an interesting political battle between the two that might just end in them sharing a joint consulship again.

As for the Caesar Affair, Crassus has the influence to ensure Caesar is allowed to stand for his consulship in 49, and its most definitely within his interests to do such. Combined with support from Pompey most likely and Cicero probably wishing to keep Rome away from the brink, the Catonians are going to lose that political battle and Cicero will be allowed to stand for consul.


The fun part comes with Pompey. Crassus just spent the past 6 years winning a military triumph and arguably surpassing Pompey's own achievements in the east, and then came back to maneuever himself into a superior position to Pompey. Pompey was always the loser in the triumvirate politically. IOTL he was already trying to stitch together his old pre-Triumvirate coalition (hence his marriage alliance to the Metelli). This is likely accelerated ITTL. Knowing how smart the Catonians are politically, they'll work to play the triumvirs off each other-and the easiest one to use for that is Pompey. Pompey might want a military command somewhere now, just to make sure he isn't upstaged by Crassus and Caesar. Dacia maybe? Maybe the tenuous political situation in the east Crassus created begins to crack and Pompey tries to get the command there? Maybe Pharnaces II of Pontus tries his luck at recovering his kingdom again?


That actually makes Crassus even more dangerous by comparison to Caesar and Pompey. Crassus has a clear heir to his name, his wealth, and his political loyalties. More than that, Publius is a very competent adult capable of hitting the ground running if anything should happen to his father, and can be safely trusted to carry out political or military plans without concern that he might change sides or go rogue.

Crassus had no interest in establishing some kind of monarchy (for that matter, neither did Caesar or Pompey). He wanted to be the first man in Rome, to have the most power, wealth, and influence. He had that for the most part. Crassus's coalition was perhaps the most durable of the 3, and he was virtually untouchable politically (the Catonians, when targeting the triumvirate, often focused exclusively on Caesar and Pompey. Crassus had too many friends and was far too good at politics to take on).
 
What if instead of being a disaster the Parthian campaign of Crassus goes off swimmingly...
I am afraid that's just impossible.

Some lessons are taught only the hard way.
I mean the lesson that an infantry army (which is weak at cavalry and missile troops) is always at disadvantage against the cavalry army (with excellent mounted archers). Especially on their (the enemy's) turf.

Centuries of success convinced the Romans that their way of warfare was universal and good against any foe.
So the Romans will not change their military ways and they will lose against the Parthians.

I don't like historical determinism, but that's the case when the outcome is pretty determined.
The Romans are destined to lose in their first attempt to conquer the Parthian Empire...
...unless they have a military genius as the general - then they have some chance.
Which is not our case, I mean Crassus Senior is definitely not a genius. Crassus Junior is a brave warrior no doubt, but he is young, and not in command, his father is too domineering.

So, the best case scenario is Crassus with his son survive and manage to return with the army.
That would change the history but far less than the victorious campaign. Because here Crassus lost money and he's humiliated by the defeat.
 
SlyDesert - would Surena really defect? His family (the Surena) were supposedly landholders in the east, and defecting seems like it could imperil them. Short of the complete collapse of the Parthians, it would probably be a bad move for him to defect.
 
So Crassus marches through Armenia. Let's assume for a moment that the Armenian King Artavasdes does not betray him or sabotage him like he might have been considering doing (it was in Artavasdes's interests to have neither Rome nor Parthia to gain a decisive military edge in order to preserve Armenia's independence). Parthia isn't going to be sending incompetent generals. The Parthians seem to have been relatively well led at this period, and no doubt Monaesus Surena will be harassing Crassus (Surena, who likely was not murdered after Carrhae, is probably the Monaesus that comes up during Antony's campaign).

Now, IOTL, Monaesus actually kept up a back channel with Antony as a precautionary measure should he achieve success. So let's assume Crassus does. With the help of the Armenians, he defeats the Parthians in a series of battles in Media-Atropatene. The big question here is can he convince Artavasdes I of Media Atropatene to defect. Artavasdes was always open to the idea, though his rivalry with Armenia might make him hesitate. It's possible though that after some clear victories for Crassus, Artavasdes will defect and bring Media-Atropatene along with him.


This is probably when Monaesus Surena defects, or shortly afterward. He was likely a Mesopotamian noble and probably had estates there, so I can see a mutually beneficial deal being set up. He defects and Crassus agrees to install him as King in Mesopotamia and Babylonia. So effectively you have loose client kings in Armenia, Media-Atropatene, and Mesopotamia/Babylonia.




Now, as for what this means back home in Rome, you probably just butterflied the civil war. Crassus already had enormous influence and arguably had the strongest and most loyal faction in the city-his influance extended over many of the back benchers, those who would normally go unnoticed but still made up a large proportion of the Senate-and thus a lot of the voting power. Now IOTL many of them migrated towards Caesar's camp after his death, but obviously that doesn't happen here. He'll have an effect on the instability that gripped Rome in 52 BC (assuming he's back by then, which isn't a guarantee I guess), and rather than Pompey being appointed dictator, Crassus might try to maneuver himself to get the honor. That could set up an interesting political battle between the two that might just end in them sharing a joint consulship again.

As for the Caesar Affair, Crassus has the influence to ensure Caesar is allowed to stand for his consulship in 49, and its most definitely within his interests to do such. Combined with support from Pompey most likely and Cicero probably wishing to keep Rome away from the brink, the Catonians are going to lose that political battle and Cicero will be allowed to stand for consul.


The fun part comes with Pompey. Crassus just spent the past 6 years winning a military triumph and arguably surpassing Pompey's own achievements in the east, and then came back to maneuever himself into a superior position to Pompey. Pompey was always the loser in the triumvirate politically. IOTL he was already trying to stitch together his old pre-Triumvirate coalition (hence his marriage alliance to the Metelli). This is likely accelerated ITTL. Knowing how smart the Catonians are politically, they'll work to play the triumvirs off each other-and the easiest one to use for that is Pompey. Pompey might want a military command somewhere now, just to make sure he isn't upstaged by Crassus and Caesar. Dacia maybe? Maybe the tenuous political situation in the east Crassus created begins to crack and Pompey tries to get the command there? Maybe Pharnaces II of Pontus tries his luck at recovering his kingdom again?




Crassus had no interest in establishing some kind of monarchy (for that matter, neither did Caesar or Pompey). He wanted to be the first man in Rome, to have the most power, wealth, and influence. He had that for the most part. Crassus's coalition was perhaps the most durable of the 3, and he was virtually untouchable politically (the Catonians, when targeting the triumvirate, often focused exclusively on Caesar and Pompey. Crassus had too many friends and was far too good at politics to take on).

Hm good speculation. But I want too make the Parthians incompetent to favor Crassus even more. Let's say there was civil war or coup that led to a culling of talent.
 
Hm good speculation. But I want too make the Parthians incompetent to favor Crassus even more. Let's say there was civil war or coup that led to a culling of talent.

Well, that wouldn't be a 'kosher' true althistory, that would be a multiple POD:
- making Crassus wiser and at the same time making the Parthians incompetent.

Actually disaster of Crassus was not because of his personal incompetence or some extraordinary greatness of the Parthian generals.
First real invasion of an infantry army into the land of cavalry army with excellent mounted archers... heck, if it had been first time even Caesar might have lost and his severed head would have been a decoration for a theater performance of a Parthian shahinshah.
 
I am afraid that's just impossible.

Some lessons are taught only the hard way.
I mean the lesson that an infantry army (which is weak at cavalry and missile troops) is always at disadvantage against the cavalry army (with excellent mounted archers). Especially on their (the enemy's) turf.

Centuries of success convinced the Romans that their way of warfare was universal and good against any foe.
So the Romans will not change their military ways and they will lose against the Parthians.

I don't like historical determinism, but that's the case when the outcome is pretty determined.
The Romans are destined to lose in their first attempt to conquer the Parthian Empire...
...unless they have a military genius as the general - then they have some chance.
Which is not our case, I mean Crassus Senior is definitely not a genius. Crassus Junior is a brave warrior no doubt, but he is young, and not in command, his father is too domineering.

So, the best case scenario is Crassus with his son survive and manage to return with the army.
That would change the history but far less than the victorious campaign. Because here Crassus lost money and he's humiliated by the defeat.

Even if Crassus lucks into a bunch of ambushes and fight incompetent general he's still going to lose?
 
Well, that wouldn't be a 'kosher' true althistory, that would be a multiple POD:
- making Crassus wiser and at the same time making the Parthians incompetent.

Actually disaster of Crassus was not because of his personal incompetence or some extraordinary greatness of the Parthian generals.
First real invasion of an infantry army into the land of cavalry army with excellent mounted archers... heck, if it had been first time even Caesar might have lost and his severed head would have been a decoration for a theater performance of a Parthian shahinshah.

I'm only making Crassus a little bit wiser in him taking the Armenia route. Everything eles is good luck on his part.
 
SlyDesert - would Surena really defect? His family (the Surena) were supposedly landholders in the east, and defecting seems like it could imperil them. Short of the complete collapse of the Parthians, it would probably be a bad move for him to defect.

I was under the impression their landholdings had been in Mesopotamia. Not sure where I heard that admittedly, so I'm probably wrong. If that's the case, then you may be right, Surena probably would not defect.
 
I was under the impression their landholdings had been in Mesopotamia. Not sure where I heard that admittedly, so I'm probably wrong. If that's the case, then you may be right, Surena probably would not defect.

Eh he probley won't exist in my scenario since Crassus lucked into fighting incompetent generals. But if he does exist is there anyway for Crassus to win?
 
So Crassus marches through Armenia. Let's assume for a moment that the Armenian King Artavasdes does not betray him or sabotage him like he might have been considering doing (it was in Artavasdes's interests to have neither Rome nor Parthia to gain a decisive military edge in order to preserve Armenia's independence). Parthia isn't going to be sending incompetent generals. The Parthians seem to have been relatively well led at this period, and no doubt Monaesus Surena will be harassing Crassus (Surena, who likely was not murdered after Carrhae, is probably the Monaesus that comes up during Antony's campaign).

Now, IOTL, Monaesus actually kept up a back channel with Antony as a precautionary measure should he achieve success. So let's assume Crassus does. With the help of the Armenians, he defeats the Parthians in a series of battles in Media-Atropatene. The big question here is can he convince Artavasdes I of Media Atropatene to defect. Artavasdes was always open to the idea, though his rivalry with Armenia might make him hesitate. It's possible though that after some clear victories for Crassus, Artavasdes will defect and bring Media-Atropatene along with him.


This is probably when Monaesus Surena defects, or shortly afterward. He was likely a Mesopotamian noble and probably had estates there, so I can see a mutually beneficial deal being set up. He defects and Crassus agrees to install him as King in Mesopotamia and Babylonia. So effectively you have loose client kings in Armenia, Media-Atropatene, and Mesopotamia/Babylonia.




Now, as for what this means back home in Rome, you probably just butterflied the civil war. Crassus already had enormous influence and arguably had the strongest and most loyal faction in the city-his influance extended over many of the back benchers, those who would normally go unnoticed but still made up a large proportion of the Senate-and thus a lot of the voting power. Now IOTL many of them migrated towards Caesar's camp after his death, but obviously that doesn't happen here. He'll have an effect on the instability that gripped Rome in 52 BC (assuming he's back by then, which isn't a guarantee I guess), and rather than Pompey being appointed dictator, Crassus might try to maneuver himself to get the honor. That could set up an interesting political battle between the two that might just end in them sharing a joint consulship again.

As for the Caesar Affair, Crassus has the influence to ensure Caesar is allowed to stand for his consulship in 49, and its most definitely within his interests to do such. Combined with support from Pompey most likely and Cicero probably wishing to keep Rome away from the brink, the Catonians are going to lose that political battle and Cicero will be allowed to stand for consul.


The fun part comes with Pompey. Crassus just spent the past 6 years winning a military triumph and arguably surpassing Pompey's own achievements in the east, and then came back to maneuever himself into a superior position to Pompey. Pompey was always the loser in the triumvirate politically. IOTL he was already trying to stitch together his old pre-Triumvirate coalition (hence his marriage alliance to the Metelli). This is likely accelerated ITTL. Knowing how smart the Catonians are politically, they'll work to play the triumvirs off each other-and the easiest one to use for that is Pompey. Pompey might want a military command somewhere now, just to make sure he isn't upstaged by Crassus and Caesar. Dacia maybe? Maybe the tenuous political situation in the east Crassus created begins to crack and Pompey tries to get the command there? Maybe Pharnaces II of Pontus tries his luck at recovering his kingdom again?




Crassus had no interest in establishing some kind of monarchy (for that matter, neither did Caesar or Pompey). He wanted to be the first man in Rome, to have the most power, wealth, and influence. He had that for the most part. Crassus's coalition was perhaps the most durable of the 3, and he was virtually untouchable politically (the Catonians, when targeting the triumvirate, often focused exclusively on Caesar and Pompey. Crassus had too many friends and was far too good at politics to take on).

I rather agree with Sly.

I will however add that I doubt Crassus' eastern campaign could be a huge triumph. Main reason is that in fact Pompey cheated Crassus of his real goal that was not Parthia buy Egypt. Crassus had been turning a round Egypt for 10 years. And in 55, during his second joint consulship with Crassus, Pompey deliberately blew away Crassus' plan by giving the go for his client Gabinius, then in his last year as proconsul of Syria, to go to Egypt and set things up so that Crassus no longer had motive to do it.

The point is that, from 59 on, Pompey and Caesar had decided to reserve for nobody else than themselves the profits of patronage over Egypt, at the expense of Crassus. By 57, Pompey was trying to have a special commission over Egypt and was frustrated of it by Crassus and Clodius who in fact acted as Crassus' lieutenant from 59 on.

But I agree. Crassus returning alive and reasonably victorious from his syrian proconsulship will imply that there is no opportunity for the optimates and especially the catonians to caused the collision between Caesar and Pompey. So the so-called triumvirate more or less goes on and there is no civil war.
 
Well, that wouldn't be a 'kosher' true althistory, that would be a multiple POD:
- making Crassus wiser and at the same time making the Parthians incompetent.

Actually disaster of Crassus was not because of his personal incompetence or some extraordinary greatness of the Parthian generals.
First real invasion of an infantry army into the land of cavalry army with excellent mounted archers... heck, if it had been first time even Caesar might have lost and his severed head would have been a decoration for a theater performance of a Parthian shahinshah.

Battle of the Cicilian Gates, 39AD, disagrees with you.

Now, admittedly, this is post Carrhae, so the Romans do have that experience, and know a little bit of what not to do. But with an army that's basically still the same makeup as the normal, they utterly trounced the Parthians.

Now, that's rather more difficult to do a) first time round, and b) continuously. But it is possible.
 
Battle of the Cicilian Gates, 39AD, disagrees with you.

Now, admittedly, this is post Carrhae, so the Romans do have that experience, and know a little bit of what not to do. But with an army that's basically still the same makeup as the normal, they utterly trounced the Parthians.

Now, that's rather more difficult to do a) first time round, and b) continuously. But it is possible.

The Cicilian Gates are a pretty terrible environment for a cavalry army, not to mention never were inside Parthian territory, far as I know. That was a Parthian invasion into Roman territory.

But nevermind that. The Parthians can totally lose battles against the Romans, and vice versa. There's plenty of examples of both. Especially with the support of locals/Armenians, the Romans can win and indeed likely win big. Not necessarily probable, but perfectly possible.

That said, Calvin, it doesn't really help to change the original "What if" scenario. If you want to write a Romewank timeline, that's fine. But at a certain point you have to just realize that the answer to all of these borderline ASB[1] "what ifs" is just "Rome wins even harder."

[1] I'm not sure what else deleting all capable Parthian nobles at the near apex of their power and success could qualify as.
 
Top