What if there was some strong centralized empire that Kept the Romans out of conquering anywhere in the middle east?
- Thread starter Wr1t3r
- Start date
What power? There were the Seleucids, the Romans crushed them. The Parthians didn't perform much better against the Romans either.
No because those areas have literally marginal returns and very little in the way of natural defense. Maybe one, as a vanity project, but considering they have a more dangerous opponent, chances are the resources are spent there.
Those areas are incredibly poor, literally not worth it. The land is poor or hard to work, there's little to no easily mined material, and almost no major settlement (for Roman standards) to be brought in.
Prior to the annexation of Pergamon, which was an accident,the Romans had shown very little interests in official annexation of any territory in the east,
So, does anything change for the Romans (other than not having the western Middle east) Until the huns show up?
Indeed, but my point is that even if there was political will for expansion, there would not be a real incentive to go to Ireland, Morocco or in the East Europe plains, whereas once the pretext to go to the Middle East happened, Rome increasingly got involved.
The main difference is that a stronger competitor, able to force its way to the Mediterranean, could and would take advantage of any Roman weakness, for sure taking Egypt and quite possibly mounting attacks into Asia Minor.
Does the Gaullic empire still get proclaimed? Does the Roman empire still get split into 4 during the times of Diocletian, then again after the death of constantine, and later split again into 2? Is the Capital still moved all the way to Byzantium? Do the Romans do any better or worse against the Barbarians of the 5th & 6th centuries (The Germanic & Hunnic ones)
Butterflies…..Without the influx of the Eastern wealth, the dynamics of the Republic just changed entirely.
Perhaps Mithridatis VI manages to drive the Romans out of Anatolia and founds his own long lasting empire? It's a bit late but it reverses Roman gains in the region and keeps them out of Syria and Judea
Yes, either a survival of the empire of Alexander as a full check in roman expansion in the east (requires a vary early pod) or a partial revival due to a strong successor state (can work with a later republican era pod) as a partial check. your suggestion of Mithridatis of pontus is one of my favorite succesor states for founding a strong post Alexandrian greek state, the other being Epirus.
Mithridatic Wars - Wikipedia
Kingdom of Pontus - Wikipedia
Pyrrhic War - Wikipedia
Epirus (ancient state) - Wikipedia
I am planning a future TL with a POD in 143 BC and will include Mithridates in the future
raharris1973
Gone Fishin'
Maybe Dacia is considered more precious to hold though for the minerals, and whatever is the front with the Middle East power is shorter and easier to defend than the historic Parthian and especially Sassanid frontiers.
Anatolia has options, but there's no border competitive with OTL south of Aleppo. Dacia is an half-exception - it's akin to Roman Britain in terms of relative investiment in men and distance from the Roman core.