WI/AHC: Romans deal with Persia.

[Historyman 14]

For the longest time, the Persians was a thorn in the Romans side that only got worst as time went on. First the Parthians, and then the Sasanian Empire seemly became trapped in a cycle of 'tug of war' for the region, first with the Roman Republic, then the Roman Empire, and at last the Eastern Romans. The end result was the two sides simply weaken to the point of the Arabs going to town on both Eastern Romans and Persians. And the rest is history.

Your mission here is to have the Romans conquer and hold Persia for as long as possible/have them deal with Persia and the affects from this at any given time.

 

[Albert.Nik]

This means they get an easy access to Central Asian Steppes and River Valleys,Arabia Felix to an extent, Caucasus, Karakoram range and valleys and parts of mountain and river valleys in Northern India. If they manage to assimilate the people native to the regions well as they did in Syria,North Africa,Balkans,Gaul,etc,they can manage a great success! This unfortunately isn't very easy and is a long and slow process. Greeks tried but by the time they could succeed,they were overrun by Scythians. So if they manage this and sustain hence,a survival to this day would have been possible.

 

[Toraach]

I see two possibilities for this. I mean two which were close calls in the OTL. When of course during all the Principate Romans had enough power to destroy Partians for good. Also I think that it wasn't neccessary to go into the Iranian Plateau, when Mesopatamia was much more interesting and worthly, but even the Plateau wasn't an unconquerable fortress. The Seleucids were able to control it for circa 150 years. Also, the Roman don't have to go to the furthes east of the Plateau, behind the deserts, to Baktria, Ariana, etc. The deserts are like a natural border, the Zagros and lands of the west are enough for them. And without Mesopotamia anyone who is able to control the Plateau is much poorer.
1. Ceasar isn't killed by the evil, nasty traitors. He planned a war against the Parthians. Seeing how able commander he was, and what forces he could muster, that would be a dissaster for the Parthians.
2. Traian. Well, I don't know if he planned to go into the Plateau, but he was able to get hold into Mesopotamia, which was one of the richest, fertilest, etc lands of Oikoumene known for Romans.
3. I wonder about Caracall. That is also an interesting possibility for a timeline. He wasn't killed and succesfuly invaded the Parthians. His father got some lands of Northern Mesopotamia, so the son might want to get all.

 

[Daedalus]

When you say "conquer" do you mean annexing Persia? Because if so, then it's certainly asking a lot of Rome that could threaten to collapse it from overextension. Now, trouncing Persia so thoroughly it breaks up into easier-to-handle smaller states and vassalizing a few of those, maybe that is possible. But Persia is large and mountainous, has its own culture and history pitted against Rome, with the added bonus of being even further away from Rome/Constantinople, further increasing its rebellious tendencies should it be conquered. Furthermore, it exposes the Roman Empire to a slew of new threats- the Central Asian hordes, the Indians, an even larger border with the Arabs, a border up in the Caucuses... It would almost certainly force them to change to an eastern capital sooner like Constantinople, Antioch, or even Ctesiphon. As for how is a trickier matter. The above method of trounce-split-vassalize could work if rebellions and border threats in other parts of the empire were quelled at the right time, but it would really have to be near perfect timing to stop them from switching allegiances and seeing themselves as Roman subjects.

 

[DG Valdron]

It's hard to guess how long a Roman/Persian Empire could last before civil war or centrifugal forces. A decade? A generation? A century or two? I think that break up would be inevitable.

One of the Roman's problems is that there were major obstacles to communication and power projection. Geography is a harsh mistress. The Romans would literally have to evolve new organisational structures to cope. Tricky.

 

[A Most Sovereign Lady]

Some people have argued (No, I don't have names) that Trajan* could've done it.

*Edit: I derped

 

[DG Valdron]

When were the Persians at their weakest. That's when it could have been done.

 

[Toraach]

When you say "conquer" do you mean annexing Persia? Because if so, then it's certainly asking a lot of Rome that could threaten to collapse it from overextension. Now, trouncing Persia so thoroughly it breaks up into easier-to-handle smaller states and vassalizing a few of those, maybe that is possible. But Persia is large and mountainous, has its own culture and history pitted against Rome, with the added bonus of being even further away from Rome/Constantinople, further increasing its rebellious tendencies should it be conquered. Furthermore, it exposes the Roman Empire to a slew of new threats- the Central Asian hordes, the Indians, an even larger border with the Arabs, a border up in the Caucuses... It would almost certainly force them to change to an eastern capital sooner like Constantinople, Antioch, or even Ctesiphon. As for how is a trickier matter. The above method of trounce-split-vassalize could work if rebellions and border threats in other parts of the empire were quelled at the right time, but it would really have to be near perfect timing to stop them from switching allegiances and seeing themselves as Roman subjects.

What do you mean by "overextension"? I don't see any overextension in OTL Rome. Leaving Germania after the Teutoburg Forest wasn't "overextension" but a stupid political decision. August had some panic attack, his father (screw that adopted, for Romans that didn't matter) would have just send more legions in this situation. At one point his commanders lost one and half legion in one battle in Galia, when his whole forces were like 10 legions, but still it didn't stop him.

Rome had ways of integration of conquered territories. At least during the Principate, and I pressume that we are talking about this period. Because honestly, I don't see any possibilities for the Late Empire for going into great conquests somewhere. Well, threats of steppe nomans are certainly genuine concerns. But Arabs were just desert raiders, who weren't any threat for Rome. Indians? Well, also, first you need a big indian empire, which is willing to go outside of India.

The Seleukids managed to hold the Plateau for 150 years, and to circa 250bc they even had control over Baktria and Sogdiana on the furthest east, so I don't think that for much better and powerful organized Rome isn't possible to control Mesopotamia and Media, Susiana, Persis etc. I don't see much reasons to go further east.

 

[RogueTraderEnthusiast]

I like a Caesar idea - but IMO the issue is that you need to make the Persian Empire a cousin/brother. I'm a fan of a Constantinople/Sari split of the Empire, with Sari ruling Persia, Constantinople ruling Europe (and maybe a western capital too, but I digress).

The key isn't Breaking Persia, it is making Persians part of the Roman idea. Honestly, I think Octavian under Caesar might be perfect for this. He's plenty cunning, and rebuilt the idea of Rome - either find a Persian equivalent, or Octavian be deeply interested in Persia, and you could have Caesar in Rome, Octavian in Persia, with massive cultural overlap. There are plenty of Persian scholars who could be useful in Africa, or Egypt - and vice versa Romans in Persia. Plus, using Greek as a working language is feasible. Neither Roman, nor Persian. It works as a lingua franca.

 

[GauchoBadger]

The longer-living-Caracalla-invades-Persia idea seems interesting to me (and Rome), because Parthia was going through a civil war at this time period, which, IOTL, culminated in the Sassanids gaining power. If Caracalla is smart, he can play the Arsacids and Sassanids against each other from his base in Mesopotamia.
However, it seems that he was planning to fully invade Iran as a result of his (precedented) "Alexander Syndrome", so this would require some injection of sense into his brain. Or a different person in the position of emperor.

 

[Toraach]

I like a Caesar idea - but IMO the issue is that you need to make the Persian Empire a cousin/brother. I'm a fan of a Constantinople/Sari split of the Empire, with Sari ruling Persia, Constantinople ruling Europe (and maybe a western capital too, but I digress).

The key isn't Breaking Persia, it is making Persians part of the Roman idea. Honestly, I think Octavian under Caesar might be perfect for this. He's plenty cunning, and rebuilt the idea of Rome - either find a Persian equivalent, or Octavian be deeply interested in Persia, and you could have Caesar in Rome, Octavian in Persia, with massive cultural overlap. There are plenty of Persian scholars who could be useful in Africa, or Egypt - and vice versa Romans in Persia. Plus, using Greek as a working language is feasible. Neither Roman, nor Persian. It works as a lingua franca.

What is the Persian Idea? It started to matter under the Sassanians.

And it is against this what the Romans though about themselves during the late Republic and Principate. Who are the Persian Scholars? All kinds of theoretical and "scientific" knowledge of that period was in Greek. For adopting some practical solutions known by Persians, Celts etc, the Romans didn't need much effort, it was a natural process of spreading useful ideas, things. During Cesar's time still elites in Mesopotamian cities were greek in language and culture. Only in the Plateau is a matter how to setle coexistence with iranian aristocrats, but still it wasn't that important. The Seleucids left them mostly alone, and ruled over the Plateau for long time. But with a further urbanization of Iran-proper under the Roman Empire (more developed urbanization happend in OTL during the Sassanians) it would become less important, and those elites might just culturally hellenised and politically romanised themselves. Mesopotamia was a diffrent matter with her big cities, easier to control for Rome.

One important thing. During the hellenistic period, under the Seleukids, the Greeks and the Iranians didn't mingle, didn't influeced themselves much, despite being under one rule, except Baktria. So there is a question. How could it look in a case of the roman conquest of the Plateau? I think, as I stated above, that contrary to what happened under the Seleukids, there might be a greater integration. For the most important strata of the iranian society, the roman rule might be atractive in long term.

 

[Mikestone8]

Does this lead to the RE converting to Zoroastrianism instead of Christianity? Or does a Persian brand of Christianity emerge?

 

[WilliamOfOckham]

Does this lead to the RE converting to Zoroastrianism instead of Christianity? Or does a Persian brand of Christianity emerge?

Because you say "convert", I'm assuming you have this POD in mind before the third century or so. In that case, why does a Roman Empire so dramatically different need to convert to anything in particular? It wasn't like people in first-century Europe were just sitting around waiting for "any religion but ours" to come along.

The most likely result of literally any pre-Christian Roman POD is a social crisis leading to decline in civil religion, and the rise of a bhakti-style popular piety. Maybe less Jupiter and Artemis, maybe more Bacchus and Isis, but something still definitely polytheistic and with obvious continuity from the classical system. OTL's "mystical Jewish anticlerical movement somehow takes over the entire western world" is probably the least plausible outcome imaginable.

 

[ar-pharazon]

I think Trajan could do it but he was already a centenarian.

Practically I don't see why it could not be done, Alexander did it and we all know how much the Roman's hero worshipped/fanboyed over Alexander(Julius Caesar included).

So a Roman emperor that wants to emulate Alexander the Great and has enough resources, men, and is most importantly a great commander and leader of men-I could see an invasion of the Iranian plateau being successful.

The problem is what you aim to do afterwards.

Break Persia? Or incorporate it into Rome?

This is difficult for a few reasons-distance, and because the Persians have a long history and civilization of their own-

They'd break free inevitably.

What would be interesting would be to have long lasting romanization(which could be accompanied by Christianization in later eras) in some sort of Rome wank.

Persia breaks free eventually but it's part of the Roman civilizational sphere.

 

[alcibiades]

The longer-living-Caracalla-invades-Persia idea seems interesting to me (and Rome), because Parthia was going through a civil war at this time period, which, IOTL, culminated in the Sassanids gaining power. If Caracalla is smart, he can play the Arsacids and Sassanids against each other from his base in Mesopotamia.
However, it seems that he was planning to fully invade Iran as a result of his (precedented) "Alexander Syndrome", so this would require some injection of sense into his brain. Or a different person in the position of emperor.

I agree with this. Caracalla probably had the best shot with the country in the state it was in. Info on his Eastern campaigns is a bit sketchy. Reading some of the the new studies coming out it seems clear he pushed through Media penetrating deeper than any Roman previously. Have him not get assasinated, repel the Parthians at Nisibis like Marcrinus did , then takes up a full invasion next season .

 

[DominusNovus]

First of all: your best bet is probably a more martially competent and confident Alexander Severus. The Parthians were on their last legs, and Alexander had some very solid resources at his disposal, but seems to have lacked the expertise and confidence to utilize them.

Second: It won't happen. The logistical challenges alone are all but insurmountable. If you take a look at http://orbis.stanford.edu and run the numbers from Rome to northern Mesopotamia, you'll see that the cost in time and supplies are comparable with the British border, along Hadrian's Wall. And thats the closest part of the Persian Empire, with much of the costs reduced by plenty of maritime transport options. A Roman army occupying Mesopotamia would be at severe disadvantage, far from the Mediterranean transportation network that would keep it fed in most of the rest of the Empire. A Roman army occupying Persia itself would face even longer odds. At least Mesopotamia has its river network.

What you could see is a possible conquest of Mesopotamia, whose main value would probably be in denying its resources to the Persians, rather than being valuable to Rome in and of itself. This could be a long-term situation. Meanwhile, Persia itself is beyond the ability of the Romans to conquer and hold. Perhaps a daring general (hopefully already an Emperor, or else he's going to be reigned in very quickly) would be able to topple an already-weak dynasty, but they're not going to be able to stick around for long. If our Emperor is smart, he'll be happy with a divided Persia. If we go with the idea of striking as the Parthians are falling, then attack the Parthians, and support powerful rulers in the core areas of Media and Persia and Parthia, and hope for a relatively even three-way division of the region. It won't last, it won't be stable, but the best case scenario would be a century or two before one of those rulers, or the Kushans or White Huns, re-unite Persia.

Or, get someone to build an early Suez Canal that can support the logistical strains of a Mesopotamian campaign, and then, Mesopotamia and the Persian coast become much closer. Thats not meant as a serious proposition, but a demonstration of how hard this is.

 

[Max Sinister]

When were the Persians at their weakest. That's when it could have been done.

When hit by a plague? But that might spread to Rome as well.

 

[Mikestone8]

Because you say "convert", I'm assuming you have this POD in mind before the third century or so. In that case, why does a Roman Empire so dramatically different need to convert to anything in particular? It wasn't like people in first-century Europe were just sitting around waiting for "any religion but ours" to come along.

The most likely result of literally any pre-Christian Roman POD is a social crisis leading to decline in civil religion, and the rise of a bhakti-style popular piety. Maybe less Jupiter and Artemis, maybe more Bacchus and Isis, but something still definitely polytheistic and with obvious continuity from the classical system. OTL's "mystical Jewish anticlerical movement somehow takes over the entire western l" is probably the least plausible outcome imaginable.

Why should acquiring a few more deserts and mountain range out east make polytheism any more likely to prevail than OTL?

 

[Fed]

Gross underestimation of Iran strikes again!

What do you mean by "overextension"? I don't see any overextension in OTL Rome. Leaving Germania after the Teutoburg Forest wasn't "overextension" but a stupid political decision. August had some panic attack, his father (screw that adopted, for Romans that didn't matter) would have just send more legions in this situation. At one point his commanders lost one and half legion in one battle in Galia, when his whole forces were like 10 legions, but still it didn't stop him.

I hope you're aware that Iran is, well, slightly larger than the area between the Rhine and Elbe rivers, as well as slightly more politically organised, slightly more religiously opposed to Greco-Roman annexation, and slightly more densely populated. All those "slightly" are actually "far, far".

Rome had ways of integration of conquered territories. At least during the Principate, and I pressume that we are talking about this period. Because honestly, I don't see any possibilities for the Late Empire for going into great conquests somewhere. Well, threats of steppe nomans are certainly genuine concerns. But Arabs were just desert raiders, who weren't any threat for Rome. Indians? Well, also, first you need a big indian empire, which is willing to go outside of India.

None of the Roman conquests were quite as large and developed as Iran - the closest there was to a large-scale integration was Carthage (whose Punic population was concentrated in a single city and thus was easy to break) and Gaul (which was divided amongst sevral tribes and groups). Iran is a whole other thing- there's a reason why it didn't happen, and it's very similar to why China never fully conquered Korea or Japan, for instance - if Korea and Japan were basically the same size as China.

The Seleukids managed to hold the Plateau for 150 years, and to circa 250bc they even had control over Baktria and Sogdiana on the furthest east, so I don't think that for much better and powerful organized Rome isn't possible to control Mesopotamia and Media, Susiana, Persis etc. I don't see much reasons to go further east.

The Seleucid government had to exclusively deal with those areas and Syria (which is a natural territorial configuration - most large Ancient empires that held Persia also held Mesopotamia, and tried to control Syria), not with their own huge empire. Plus, the Seleucids were far more descentralised. And it's not like they had an iron grip over Iran - the Parthians started rebelling in the 250s BC, which isn't 150 years, but rather closer to 70.

 

[SlyDessertFox]

And it's not like they had an iron grip over Iran - the Parthians started rebelling in the 250s BC, which isn't 150 years, but rather closer to 70.

I agree with the rest of this post, but I'm not sure what the Parthians had to do with Iran proper in 250 BCE.