A Parthian question

I'm pretty sure what I'm asking hasn't been asked before. Andragoras, satrap of Parthia, had won independence from the Seleucid Empire, alongside Diodotus I of Bactria, in the aftermath of Antiochus II's death and the capture of Antioch by the Ptolemies. He had a bit of difficulty raising up an army to defend his land and thus invited an invasion by the Parni led by Arsaces a couple of years later, aborting the chance for a Greco-Parthian state to emerge and leaving Bactria isolated from the rest of the Greek world. What if Andragoras managed to raise a large enough army and deter the Parni from invading or if they invade, conquer them?

I'm sure I'll be ignored.


Oh and I'm thinking of doing a time-line.
 
well, surely the Greco-Parthians would allow for greater spread of Hellenism and transfer of Indian and Greek culture.

The Seleucids might reconquor them, however, during the reign of Antiochus III, who did take back a lot of land from the Parthians and Greco-Bactrians during his reign, actually bringing the Seleucid Empire back to its ancient border with the Mauryan Empire.
 
Probably so. I'm pretty sure Andragoras, like Arsaces and his successors, would try to weasel out and settle for being a vassal state than return to direct Seleucid rule or perhaps settle for autonomy in exchange for aiding the Seleucids against the Greco-Bactrians.

I'm in the opinion, if things everywhere else remain the same for the next couple of decades before the butterflies take full effect, Andragoras and his descendants would declare full independence and begin chewing up the eastern portions of the Seleucids.

And you know, obscure PODs are my thing. ;) Just testing the waters for a future time-line.

Though it would be interesting if the Parni instead head for India

 

Though it would be interesting if the Parni instead head for India

interesting that you mention that because ( straightens invisible bowtie and coughs pompously) the Parni (a Scythian tribe) are indirectly related to the Scythians who invaded the Greco-Indus Empire and led to the end of Hellenism in India.

However, I am uncertain how well the Parni would have been able to handle the Mauryans at their height. Epic battle would surely ensue :cool:
 
interesting that you mention that because ( straightens invisible bowtie and coughs pompously) the Parni (a Scythian tribe) are indirectly related to the Scythians who invaded the Greco-Indus Empire and led to the end of Hellenism in India.

However, I am uncertain how well the Parni would have been able to handle the Mauryans at their height. Epic battle would surely ensue :cool:

Actually Hellenism managed to survive long past the extinction of the independent Indo-Greek kingdoms in 10 AD (many decades after Cleopatra's boob got bitten by the asp :p). The Kushans, Indo-Parthians, and Saka (the Scythians you mentioned) used the Greek language and adopted the Greek alphabet, particularly the former.

But you're right on a Scythian-Mauryan conflict, epic. :D


 
Actually Hellenism managed to survive long past the extinction of the independent Indo-Greek kingdoms in 10 AD (many decades after Cleopatra's boob got bitten by the asp :p). The Kushans, Indo-Parthians, and Saka (the Scythians you mentioned) used the Greek language and adopted the Greek alphabet, particularly the former.

But you're right on a Scythian-Mauryan conflict, epic. :D



In the history course I am taking, I remember my professor mentioning that the Axumites spoke Greek early on because of influence from further up the Nile. I remember thinking that was really cool.
 
In the history course I am taking, I remember my professor mentioning that the Axumites spoke Greek early on because of influence from further up the Nile. I remember thinking that was really cool.

As a trade language? The Genocide states that Greek communities managed to survive in India until 400 AD when the Guptas came along. They wiped out a lot of the foreign groups that lived in north India.
 

As a trade language? The Genocide states that Greek communities managed to survive in India until 400 AD when the Guptas came along. They wiped out a lot of the foreign groups that lived in north India.

I think it was an aristocratic language, like the Axumites wanted to be seen as civilized and mighty like the Greeks in Egypt, so the upper class spoke Greek. I believe the common language was something close to Aramaic.

Anyway, should the Parni invade India instead of Parthia, I think that there would never be any Guptas to push out the Greeks.

However, the question is, what would the Greeks do about these barbarians horse archers while they pass through their lands on the way to India?
 
Even if Andragoras manages to repulse the actual Parni invasion, and Arsaces dies as well, another invasion may occur in the future. Parthia is stuck between the Seleucid Empire proper and the confederated Daha tribes from the north. Also, trying to conquer steppe nomads is very difficult. He would have to build a number of fortresses and walled towns in order to secure his frontier in the north. Andragoras may also sometimes have to make deals with individual tribes, allowing them to settle in his territory in order to obtain their assistance against the nomadic brethren.

Also, it should be noted that the Parni/Parthians were proponents of Hellenistic civilization during the early years. Their switch to Iranian culture was in part gradual, and may have been a result of their many wars with the Roman Empire, where the resident Hellenes (more numerous in the west than the eastern Parthian provines) may have occasionally collaborated with the Romans.
 
I think it was an aristocratic language, like the Axumites wanted to be seen as civilized and mighty like the Greeks in Egypt, so the upper class spoke Greek. I believe the common language was something close to Aramaic.

Anyway, should the Parni invade India instead of Parthia, I think that there would never be any Guptas to push out the Greeks.

However, the question is, what would the Greeks do about these barbarians horse archers while they pass through their lands on the way to India?

The Greco-Bactrians ended up being conquered quite easily by the Yuzehi despite the core areas of their kingdom being quite mountainous and difficult to traverse. They'll probably have to buy off barbarians or use realpolitik to keep them from invading their lands.

The same can be said for the Greco-Parthians.

Thanks for the tidbit Lysandros. I hope you can add more since it's such a obscure topic.


 
I think it was an aristocratic language, like the Axumites wanted to be seen as civilized and mighty like the Greeks in Egypt, so the upper class spoke Greek. I believe the common language was something close to Aramaic.

Anyway, should the Parni invade India instead of Parthia, I think that there would never be any Guptas to push out the Greeks.

However, the question is, what would the Greeks do about these barbarians horse archers while they pass through their lands on the way to India?

Ethiopic (ge'ez) spoken in Axum is Semitic, but not close to Aramaic. Also, Sabean (which is also Semitic, and much closer to Ge'ez) is used in early inscriptions, so I suppose it was used by some upper layers of the society.
 
Even if Andragoras manages to repulse the actual Parni invasion, and Arsaces dies as well, another invasion may occur in the future. Parthia is stuck between the Seleucid Empire proper and the confederated Daha tribes from the north. Also, trying to conquer steppe nomads is very difficult. He would have to build a number of fortresses and walled towns in order to secure his frontier in the north. Andragoras may also sometimes have to make deals with individual tribes, allowing them to settle in his territory in order to obtain their assistance against the nomadic brethren.

Also, it should be noted that the Parni/Parthians were proponents of Hellenistic civilization during the early years. Their switch to Iranian culture was in part gradual, and may have been a result of their many wars with the Roman Empire, where the resident Hellenes (more numerous in the west than the eastern Parthian provines) may have occasionally collaborated with the Romans.

Of course that's if there are strong rulers like Antiochus III, if the Seleucids decline like they did, the Seleucids are no longer much of a matter.
 
Overextension over various ethnic groups seems to always get the rulers of this area. If someway the adoption of Hellenism can be just abit more intergrating to the society.
 
Overextension over various ethnic groups seems to always get the rulers of this area. If someway the adoption of Hellenism can be just abit more intergrating to the society.

I was under the impression that it was integrating. :p

Perhaps co-opting the local deities and have them as part of the Greek pantheon?
 

I was under the impression that it was integrating. :p

Perhaps co-opting the local deities and have them as part of the Greek pantheon?

For benefit of the rulers. While it was in the cultural sense this did not mean political unity
 
Top