Sæculum Novum
- Thread starter Janus_Antoninus
- Start date
As of now, I have written on another site a timeline that extends in detail to the 11th century AD - covering the majority of the saeculum novum that gives the title to my work on this forum. I will take this work as far as time permits. Assuming a pace of one post per week and 10 years per post (both of which I've set for myself as an approximate minimum), it will take me almost two years to reach that same point here. Suffice it to say, that's quite far in the future
Last edited:
1. So Sulla's armies have actually reached the Hebrides and Pentland Firth? How the blazes are they hanging onto such jagged infertile rock with many hostile tribes around in these highlands? No specifics on any key Caledonian rebel leaders eh? (No freedom? ) And what sort of cities will spring up out of these tribal dwellins?
2. So who's this first Koghuvtuni King who now serves Rome? I don't think he's that unimportant. (And Kartli too)
3. So now that Parthia, having now permanently lost their Eco-political core, is in a current free-fall, how much earlier will Ardashir (or some other bloke) take over the remaining Empire? (Bonus points if you can design an original dynasty, I'll help) Also weren't they the ones attacking first? No sieges relieved, just an overwhelming blitz?
4. The next update should also pry into who these children of Sulla are (even if not one of them succeeds their father as Imperator).
) And what sort of cities will spring up out of these tribal dwellins?2. So who's this first Koghuvtuni King who now serves Rome? I don't think he's that unimportant. (And Kartli too)
3. So now that Parthia, having now permanently lost their Eco-political core, is in a current free-fall, how much earlier will Ardashir (or some other bloke) take over the remaining Empire? (Bonus points if you can design an original dynasty, I'll help) Also weren't they the ones attacking first? No sieges relieved, just an overwhelming blitz?
4. The next update should also pry into who these children of Sulla are (even if not one of them succeeds their father as Imperator).
So the empire does not yet have southern Mesopotamia, will it try to annex the land up to the Persian gulf eventually? If it does and succeeds, will their be a giant wall just outside the zargos mountains (if not then how will the empire defend a place as easily invade-able as Mesopotamia)? It would be cool to have your original great Judean wall become the great zargoian wall.
I though Assur was long a burnt ruin at this point, was it destroyed when it was captured, or was it left unharmed?
Will Ctesiphon survive as a modern city? I think its fate in otl is unjust, that awesome looking arch is just sitting there, waiting for someone to rebuild it.
I though Assur was long a burnt ruin at this point, was it destroyed when it was captured, or was it left unharmed?
Will Ctesiphon survive as a modern city? I think its fate in otl is unjust
, that awesome looking arch is just sitting there, waiting for someone to rebuild it.
Last edited:
Zek Sora said:
I'll aim not to disappoint
1. So Sulla's armies have actually reached the Hebrides and Pentland Firth? How the blazes are they hanging onto such jagged infertile rock with many hostile tribes around in these highlands? No specifics on any key Caledonian rebel leaders eh? (No freedom?
2. So who's this first Koghuvtuni King who now serves Rome? I don't think he's that unimportant. (And Kartli too)
3. So now that Parthia, having now permanently lost their Eco-political core, is in a current free-fall, how much earlier will Ardashir (or some other bloke) take over the remaining Empire? (Bonus points if you can design an original dynasty, I'll help) Also weren't they the ones attacking first? No sieges relieved, just an overwhelming blitz?
4. The next update should also pry into who these children of Sulla are (even if not one of them succeeds their father as Imperator).
- No, Rome would have dominated the major tribes without engaging the details of subjugating the entirety of Scotland, only addressing its islands insofar as it facilitated bringing supplies along the coast. For context, consider the campaigns of Agricola from 79 to 84 CE. Sulla devoted nearly three more years than Julius Agricola and fielded several thousand more soldiers (even by less conservative accounts). Alongside the advantage of having better knowledge of the terrain - both from Agricola's own expedition and the recent excursions by Avidius Cassius - a more complete invasion of Caledonia was plausible for Sulla to accomplish - even discounting the subterfuge of Sulla that would have made enemies more apparent and garnered more allies for Rome. In any case, the key goal was the creation of treaties with the major tribes, which would have been accomplished by 204 even though a great deal of Scottish land remained unconquered and teaming with wild Scotsmen (Mel Gibson style ). I'm really glad you asked those questions! This was a good opportunity to explain some of my decisions The topic of settlements will come up in discussing the major colony that Sulla will found in Caledonia. Any suggestions for the names of other colonies?
- I have not given much thought to names, especially since it would have been someone who had to be alive IOTL and I can't claim knowledge of such matters Once everyone alive is fictional I'll begin taking some liberties with names (although in my last timeline I erred on the side of using the same names as IOTL even when the person was different in many respects - I'm getting to be of the opinion that was a mistake). The same can be said of naming Caledonian leaders, although I'd be willing to take more liberties there for fun.
- Parthia retains its capital and coastal territories but yes, the loss of much of Mesopotamia [Nope - and Adiabene] is pretty fatal to their long-term aspirations. I had planned for Ardashir to come up soon but now that you mention inventing a dynasty I'm quite tempted by the thought! Although I feel that same apprehension about inventing names this early so I'll mull it over some more.
- Indeed! Sulla will be returning to Rome after some extended time away from family so his children will be a topic for the next more domestic installment. Stay tuned!
So the empire does not yet have southern Mesopotamia, will it try to annex the land up to the Persian gulf eventually? If it does and succeeds, will their be a giant wall just outside the zargos mountains (if not then how will the empire defend a place as easily invade-able as Mesopotamia)? It would be cool to have your original great Judean wall become the great zargoian wall.
I though Assur was long a burnt ruin at this point, was it destroyed when it was captured, or was it left unharmed?
Will Ctesiphon survive as a modern city? I think its fate in otl is unjust
Perhaps Rome will try but I don't consider such an accomplishment feasible (yet). Some consolidation of existing territory is in order; at this point, Sulla would be feeling some of the apprehension that Hadrian felt about the size of the empire - his expansions would, I believe, have contributed to stability rather than detracted from it by contrast with a conquest of the Persian heartland.
Hmm, I do like the idea of a Great Zargosian Wall! If I thought Rome could (and would) conquer the rest of Mesopotamia then that would certainly replace the Great Judaean Wall. I would just require convincing to say that the requisite conquests would be attempted, much less accomplished.
Oh, Assur is very much around at this time. It remains a thriving center of Persian trade in the time of Sulla (now a thriving center of Roman trade as Sulla left the city more or less unharmed). Only a few Persian cities suffered serious destruction in this war - sadly, Ctesiphon among them (most Persian cities had their municipal treasuries looted, alongside some, uh, light pillaging as the legions passed through). Ctesiphon will survive for a while longer (I know what picture you're talking about and I love it too!), even becoming the capital of whatever force conquers the ailing Parthian Empire, but, alas, nothing lasts forever. That is, except Rome!
Last edited:
OK, I'll see what I can do...
So we have 5 (five!) generals at one theater of war. And no "Commander in Chief" is mentioned.
You know why the Romans never made their wars this way? Because it was a perfect recipe for the total disaster.
If you have a war there has to be one guy in charge (not in Rome, but in place, in the field). Period.
The war was won by the general(s) while Sulla was comfortably sitting in Rome.
So we have victorious seasoned general(s) and a boy Emperor, home-bird.
I wouldn't go so far as to call Sulla's position secure.
If you are not a general, you cannot enjoy reputation of a victorious general.
If Sulla wanted to look like a general he might visit the theatre of war at the end of hostilities and make a nice show off like it was him who defeated the Barbarians.
But he did not.
Even if he had done that, the Romans are not that easy to fool.
That's exactly why his (adopted) father did not stay comfortably in Rome, but went to Marcomania in person.
Sorry, that's where I stopped reading so far.
Domitian managed to fool the Roman army grunts and the populace this way,not the aristocrats though.
Trajan made his Eastern campaign at an old age, having great experience of Dacian conquest which he commanded personally.
And he actually failed.
How old is Sulla at that moment?
18 years old? or closer to the age of Alexander the Great starting his campaign?
Speaking of Alexander the Great we know that though he had a personal military experience he had his second in command - Parmenion, an old and experienced general who probably was really in charge in the beginning of the campaign.
Who is the general who was really in charge of the Eastern conquest of Sulla?
Did he already start feeling underappreciated? and better suited to be an emperor than the boy?
Hm, we see three new territories conquered (at least).
Where are the revolts (rebellions)? That's quite abnormal for the Romans to have new territories conquered without a good old long bloody revolt.
Especially considering huge losses of manpower the Romans had.
Kind of a revolt that the emperor has to sell his table silver to pay newly conscripted troops and starting to conscript gladiators and slaves into the imperial army.
The Romans took Mesopotamia from Parthia.
Mesopotamia was the main source of cash in the Parthian Empire, the richest land crucial for Parthian's economy.
So you won't get any tribute from Parthia, because they won't have money.
(in OTL Parthia never paid tribute to Roma: if they were strong - they fought, if they were weak - they did not have money; quite simple pattern of behavior).
But what Parthia kept - the lands which were responsible for providing best cavalry in the world into the army. which might get quite handy as the Parthians now have a national idea - to get Mesopotamia back.
I'll be sure to think up a storm of name ideas, don't you worry!
Looking forward to it
Russian said:
I'll start my reply by saying that all your criticism is greatly appreciated
You hit a wide variety and large number of decisions that I made, which is exactly what I was hoping to hear. Of course, I will try to justify my choices as well as possible.Regarding the number of generals, it is no different than IOTL. Pertinax, Maximianus, Clodius, and Pescennius were all legati legionis under the auspices of the emperor so it's ambiguous who would lead. When I find a lack of information one way or the other, I try to leave the matter open-ended: if you're correct that one general had to have supreme command on the battlefield, then such arrangements would, logically, have been made, but if it is not unusual for the campaign to be directed by a war council of the fielded generals, then that would have occurred. In either case, all four men - alongside Tarutenius who had made a name for himself with victories as a prefect - would have been named in announcing the victory before the Senate.
This is a key point for me to address.
Even though the trivmphvs was in their names, the generals received secondary credit to that given to Marcus Aurelius and the public would automatically associate the victory with the Imperator as much as with the actual generals (while some aristocrats and the very pious would see it as Sulla's victory for happening under his auspices). Meanwhile, the generals themselves are rewarded for their service to Rome and receive the highest praises that any non-emperor has received in centuries - rewards that would not be easily forgotten. Quite frankly, I don't see any incentive for any of the generals to take power from Sulla at that point. Even putting aside the reciprocation of getting the (unlawful) triumph, the way that the triumph was basically a promise of further benefits for loyalty, the sense of duty any aristocrat felt to avoid treasonous acts, the fact that the generals knew Sulla personally as a young boy, and any post-humous loyalty to Marcus Aurelius, there were still five generals (at least two of equal rank) and none were in a better position (in terms of reputation and the number of men under their command before the triumph) than the others to take power. Before the triumph, trying to take power would have just involved all of the other victorious generals fighting you (even if one man had the supreme command, it's a toss up for a legionary to obey that commander or his immediate commander). After the triumph, the generals are either away on new commands, where other generals have armies that would contend rebellion (cf. IOTL Avidius Cassius' swift end), and the others have rejoined the ranks of the Senate, where the emperor commands the Praetorian Guard (more on them in future posts!).
All of that said, I do think that personal ties to Marcus Aurelius and the young Sulla made the series of events as I described (where ultimately the generals become part of an inner circle for the emperor) a likely outcome. If the reasons I have presented still seem insufficient, then I will gladly address specific counterpoints.
A "homebird" emperor receiving the praise of a victorious general, despite being personally uninvolved, is not an unprecedented case for Rome - Nero after the First Parthian War being a good example. In fact, the idea that the generals who actually won the war would receive the honors was the strange part - refusing the honors himself might have only looked better on Sulla's part in the eyes of the people, generously giving away what was rightfully his (I didn't go this far in the actual text but it's arguably more plausible).
For Sulla to be well-informed about Parthia during his invasion at the age of 30 is quite plausible, given the centuries of contact between Rome and Parthia and the numerous prior invasions. I don't think a Macedonian invading a distant Egypt, Persia, and India is comparable to a Roman invading his neighbor (Avidius Cassius had invaded Parthia shortly before and could have provided ample tactical information for this purpose). I have in mind that Pescennius Niger accompanied Sulla in the war - injecting his experience into Sulla's own command - but my concept of Sulla (as part of the PoD) has him treating his second-in-command's advice with respect without seeming to be led by the hand by a wiser commander. In this sense, no one would have seen Pescennius as "really in command" of the war and his own perception would not be one of underappreciation.
A great point and, I admit, I should devote more space to the aftermath of the conquests rather than leaving things implied. As you accurately say, revolts are occurring in the recently conquered parts of Parthi - hence the need to keep Pescennius in Mesopotamia as legate. I did not mean for it to seem as though all was fine and dandy for his time as governor - he would have been heavily involved in the task of curbing the unrest of the conquered peoples. The same can be said for Caledonia. The next few decades will be fraught with fighting in the new territories as they settle into Roman rule.
Another consideration, however, segues well into my next point which is that not much land has actually been conquered by Sulla - except in Dacia and Scotland. Once I post a map this week, it will be more clear how little land Rome took from Parthia (I wasn't thinking when I said Adiabene yesterday - I'll cross that out while leaving it visible as a testament to my forgetfulness). To give a basic idea, Rome annexes its vassal of Osrhoene (a smooth transition of power) and takes land between the Euphrates and Tigris up to about the Median Wall. Using line integrals and some old maps, only about 30-40 thousands sq km would have been conquered. This leaves Parthia with a fair bit of its territory - Chaldaea, Media, and everything beyond the Zagros. Even if Rome had taken all of Mesopotamia, it would be an exaggeration to say that Parthia lost the source of most of its income. It would have retained the mines and pastures on the Zagros in addition to the tremendous revenues that came from tolls on the Silk Road (an oft-cited source of much of Parthia's wealth). Mesopotamia is important, rich land but it's not the end-all-and-be-all of Parthian finances.
Do you know why Parthia never paid tribute to Rome IOTL? That part will be changed if there is a good reason why it didn't happen.
As for the Parthian incentive to retake Mesopotamia, that is a possible direction. However, Parthia is known for taking a defensive stance toward Rome and at this point would be greatly lacking in confidence after two successive (harsh) defeats within the lifetime of many of its rulers. If this possibility were to seem more convincing, then it might arise in the coming posts
It would certainly be interesting!
Last edited:
As for Mesopotamia, while it may not be the be all end all of their finances, it does essentially feed the Parthian Empire (though here it depends on how much of Mesopotamia was conquered, since as I understand it, it was just the northern half?).
Though to address Russian's point about revolts, I think it's underestimated the loyalty of the legions to a dynasty, especially a successful one like the Nerva-Antonine dynasty. OTL, even with Commodus driving the empire into the ground while he enriched himself and his friends, the army never revolted against him. He was not overthrown in a military coup, but by the elites in Rome that had become fed up with him. Nor did Antoninus have any trouble with revolts, and it's telling that Avidius Cassius only revolted when he believed Aurelius was dead and a child was on the throne (and even then, only at the apparent behest of Aurelius's wife).
So I don't see the problem with Sulla, who is by all means a highly effective administrator and benefactor, not leading the armies. Though I do agree he should at least make an appearance, a la Claudius with the invasion of Britain, if only to sure up his supposed military credentials.
Though to address Russian's point about revolts, I think it's underestimated the loyalty of the legions to a dynasty, especially a successful one like the Nerva-Antonine dynasty. OTL, even with Commodus driving the empire into the ground while he enriched himself and his friends, the army never revolted against him. He was not overthrown in a military coup, but by the elites in Rome that had become fed up with him. Nor did Antoninus have any trouble with revolts, and it's telling that Avidius Cassius only revolted when he believed Aurelius was dead and a child was on the throne (and even then, only at the apparent behest of Aurelius's wife).
So I don't see the problem with Sulla, who is by all means a highly effective administrator and benefactor, not leading the armies. Though I do agree he should at least make an appearance, a la Claudius with the invasion of Britain, if only to sure up his supposed military credentials.
As for the Parthian incentive to retake Mesopotamia, that is a possible direction. However, Parthia is known for taking a defensive stance toward Rome and at this point would be greatly lacking in confidence after two successive (harsh) defeats within the lifetime of many of its rulers. If this possibility were to seem more convincing, then it might arise in the coming posts
When they were strong and had the ability to, they saw themselves as Rome's equal. And for the most part, the Romans begrudgingly accepted them as such. It doesn't look good to his vassals if the king of kings is paying tribute to another empire, which makes it seem like he's a client of the Roman Empire. When they were weak, as Russian said, they were too poor and too pre-occupied with crushing instability and civil war to be able to pay a tribute.
This does not mean, however, that in the event of a defeat like this, the Romans can't induce Parthia to pay some sort of indemnity as part of the peace treaty. The Parthians are going to stop abiding by that the first chance they get though.
Just sayin out there, people, Rome does not have all of Mesopotamia yet, just the northern part.
Janus, a good reason to conquer southern Mesopotamia would be the fact that it is a breadbasket ON THE LEVEL OF EGYPT. Won't that be great (in the empire's eyes) for the plans of citizen population growth that you had in the superpowers timeline?
Also, I think assur is not a Persian cultural center, I think it (and all of northern Mesopotamia, plus most of southern Mesopotamia aside from Ctesiphon itself) is an Assyrian cultural center. Assyrians can be described as basically the descendants of the Sumerians.
thanks and good bacon,
Swagmiester
Janus, a good reason to conquer southern Mesopotamia would be the fact that it is a breadbasket ON THE LEVEL OF EGYPT. Won't that be great (in the empire's eyes) for the plans of citizen population growth that you had in the superpowers timeline?
Also, I think assur is not a Persian cultural center, I think it (and all of northern Mesopotamia, plus most of southern Mesopotamia aside from Ctesiphon itself) is an Assyrian cultural center. Assyrians can be described as basically the descendants of the Sumerians.
thanks and good bacon,
Swagmiester
0zymandias said:
Well said. In that case, I will keep the demand for an indemnity but have the Parthians cease paying. Granted, I also have plans for Parthia to face some serious problems in the coming years before their eventual fall.
What would be a realistic reaction from Rome to a defeated enemy reneging on the payment of its war indemnities?
swag of the swage said:
Very true! I imagine that the desire to take all of Mesopotamia is quite tempting but I think it would be moderated by the memory of past difficulties, as well as the new hurdles of integrating what little territory was already taken.
Also, yes, Assur is certainly a center of Assyrian rather than Persian culture.
it can probably wait for when the Parthians to fully collapse for Rome to seize everything in front of the Zargos, but that would probably be the only time available without major cost
thanks and good bacon,
Swagmiester
thanks and good bacon,
Swagmiester
Oh, sorry, 0zymandias, I didn't see the first of your two posts!
Yup, and for that reason the Parthians will suffer by the loss of the northern half. Even if all of Mesopotamia had been taken, I don't see mass starvation resulting from the change in hands of the territory - commerce between rural and urban regions would still bring food to Parthian settlements.
That's a more moderate opinion with which I'm inclined to agree. Now, I would like to make that addition to the original text but it seems to become locked for editing after a month or so. What do writers on the forum usually do when they want to edit their work after the original post becomes locked?
0zymandias said:
Yup, and for that reason the Parthians will suffer by the loss of the northern half. Even if all of Mesopotamia had been taken, I don't see mass starvation resulting from the change in hands of the territory - commerce between rural and urban regions would still bring food to Parthian settlements.
That's a more moderate opinion with which I'm inclined to agree. Now, I would like to make that addition to the original text but it seems to become locked for editing after a month or so. What do writers on the forum usually do when they want to edit their work after the original post becomes locked?
The Roman general(s) (who were not members of the emperor's family) getting a triumph was not against the law.
There was no law against any Roman general getting a triumph.
So any Roman general can get a triumph under current Roman legislation.
You see, some things were so obvious that the Romans did not feel like making a special law against them.
For example there was no Roman law against dancing on the very edge of the rooftop which was greased with olive oil.
The Romans thought that there was no need for such a law, they thought that common sense, instinct of self-preservation was enough.
So under current Roman legislation you have the right to go dancing on the edge of the rooftop...
and (if you are an emperor) you may give your generals full triumphs...
if you are dumb enough
No, the granting of triumphs to a Roman citizen follows a number of legal customs. Among them is that he must have won a victory under his own auspices. Since all generals in imperial Rome fought under the auspices of the princeps, none were allowed by law to receive a triumph.
I'm willing to hear you out on why ingrating himself to generals is a dumb political move but I would ask that you make a case for it - a more specific explanation than that it's obviously dumb. I've presented a number of points in favor and others have brought up the low risk of a general overthrowing an established dynasty so it is not as though I ask this without reason.
I'm willing to hear you out on why ingrating himself to generals is a dumb political move but I would ask that you make a case for it - a more specific explanation than that it's obviously dumb. I've presented a number of points in favor and others have brought up the low risk of a general overthrowing an established dynasty so it is not as though I ask this without reason.
Last edited:
There was an old law/tradition that the Roman Senate may give any Roman general a triumph (well, quite natural for some victory, there were no triumphs for losers).
Of course, since August Octavian the senate did what it was told by the emperor.
IIRC there was only one exception - the triumphs were not given for victories in the Civil wars (when Romans fought Romans).
That's it. There was nothing in the imperial legislation about any "own auspicies" or "auspicies of emperor".
Actually the Roman legislation of the period still stayed Republican.
Why was giving triumphs to the five Roman generals dumb?
I know that every comparison is lame. Mine will be no exception. But it'll make my explanation shorter:
There are a lot of nice women, church-going, home-sitting, faithful to their husbands.
But sometimes you meet a real bitch, nice-looking, long legs, big boobs, blond hair, but a real bitch of a woman.
Rome (not the City only, but meaning all the legions of the Empire as well) was such a bitch of a woman. You know, unfaithful type, the one who lusts after strong, powerful men, violent winners, real men who fought and killed.
So if you are the emperor, meaning the husband of such a bitch - it is never a good idea to show her a bunch of real warriors, generals winners of a bloody war, on a golden chariot with a triumphal wreath on the head, cheered by the admiring crowds.
This bitch might want one of these men... and dump you.