AHC : A Roman Empire in Three Parts

Seleucia was the first Seleucid capital.As for why the empire fell,it has a large part to do with the Parthians,and before that,the Bactrians.Large parts of the empire broke from Seleucid rule even before the Romans came knocking.
The parthians were the beneficiary of the Romans wrecking the seleucid military and then repeatedly intervening in seleucid succession and preventing them from conquering Egypt. The seleucid empire was briefly in a period of instability before the romans, but they had recovered and were close to their peak well before Magnesia. The first Roman-Syrian war completely wrecked them.


John Grainger is a good read on Seleucid history.
 
The parthians were the beneficiary of the Romans wrecking the seleucid military and then repeatedly intervening in seleucid succession and preventing them from conquering Egypt. The seleucid empire was briefly in a period of instability before the romans, but they had recovered and were close to their peak well before Magnesia. The first Roman-Syrian war completely wrecked them.


John Grainger is a good read on Seleucid history.
That may be,but they were losing large parts of the east even before the Romans came.I'm not just talking about Persia and Mesopotamia,but Parthia itself,Bactria and a large part of of the east to the Mauryan Empire.The fact that Parthia and Bactria became independent indicates that Seleucid control over the east was extremely loose.Even before the first war with the Romans,the Seleucids were only able to force the Parthians back to vassal status,but not to reconquer them.In Bactria,their efforts to reconquer the place completely failed and they were forced to acknowledge their independence.
 
That may be,but they were losing large parts of the east even before the Romans came.I'm not just talking about Persia and Mesopotamia,but Parthia itself,Bactria and a large part of of the east to the Mauryan Empire.The fact that Parthia and Bactria became independent indicates that Seleucid control over the east was extremely loose.Even before the first war with the Romans,the Seleucids were only able to force the Parthians back to vassal status,but not to reconquer them.In Bactria,their efforts to reconquer the place completely failed and they were forced to acknowledge their independence.
Sure, in the 230s, the seleucids were in rough shape. But you have to ignore the entire reign of Antiochus III to say the Seleucids were in decline before they fought the Romans.
 
Sure, in the 230s, the seleucids were in rough shape. But you have to ignore the entire reign of Antiochus III to say the Seleucids were in decline before they fought the Romans.
I'm not ignoring it,but the fact that they went into decline just because the Romans destroyed their army in one war where they lost only some territory(which isn't really that much given the size of the empire) and had to pay a large indemnity says that structurally,there's something really wrong with the empire.We know for example that the further a place is from the capital in the pre-telegraph period,the looser the empire's control is,as there's much more room for the governor to do whatever he wants to do without closer supervision by the capital.

Back to the point about the Roman Empire.Like I've mentioned before,there will be threats from Central Asian nomads.If the Persians themselves could hardly handle them in Ctesiphon,why would the Romans be able to do any better from a place as far as Antioch?
 
Last edited:
I'm not ignoring it,but the fact that they went into decline just because the Romans destroyed their army in one war where they lost only some territory and had to pay a large indemnity says that structurally,there's something really wrong with the empire.We know for example that the further a place is from the capital in the pre-telegraph period,the looser the empire's control is,as there's much more room for the governor to do whatever he wants to do without closer supervision by the capital.
There wasn't much structurally wrong with the empire. In so much as there was, it was the fact that they relied on a core of Makedonian/Greek soldiers that, if wiped out, were not easily replaceable. That isn't a problem in Hellenistic Warfare, where armies are rarely destroyed. The Romans fought a different type of war.

And in any case, no a single battle did not cripple the Seleucids. What crippled them was repeated Roman intervention in Seleucid affairs, including encouraging disputed successions and preventing any Seleucid annexation of Egypt. The Parthians took advantage of a power vacuum created by Rome.


In any case, we're straying far from the topic here, which is the Seleucids ruling from Antioch had little to do with their decline. There are plenty of geographic advantages to a capital in Syria, as I have outlined above, that makes it preferable to a capital in Babylonia.
 
There wasn't much structurally wrong with the empire. In so much as there was, it was the fact that they relied on a core of Makedonian/Greek soldiers that, if wiped out, were not easily replaceable. That isn't a problem in Hellenistic Warfare, where armies are rarely destroyed. The Romans fought a different type of war.
You got me there,but to my knowledge,the Seleucids were much more successful at assimilating natives than the Ptolemies were,so shouldn't they be able to more readily replace losses than the Ptolemies who also sustained massive losses in wars?
And in any case, no a single battle did not cripple the Seleucids. What crippled them was repeated Roman intervention in Seleucid affairs, including encouraging disputed successions and preventing any Seleucid annexation of Egypt. The Parthians took advantage of a power vacuum created by Rome.
But if the Seleucids' power base was in Mesopotamia,would they have been as susceptible to Roman influence as the Seleucids have been if their powerbase was in Syria?
 
Last edited:
East, West, British. Have Constantine III declare himself emperor of Britain. It's not like anybody could, would, or cared to do anything to stop him.
 
I was kinda curious as to how the following scenario works (at least to others).

A no-Teutoburg scenario that leads to the conquest of Germania up to the Elbe, OTL Bohemia and Moravia, and the Carpathian Basin, where the increased land and resources provide a net boon that assists with a Persian war that takes Mesopotamia, and later all of Persia.

I thought that a cool division for this Empire into the would be

1) The West - Centered in Gaul (Lutetia? Soissons?) , it controls Gaul, Iberia, Germania, Britannia (or what is held), Bohemia and Moravia, and (debatable) Italia.
2) The Centre - Centred in Anatolia (Constantinople?), controls Greece, Dacia, the Carpathian Basin, Anatolia, Syria, Egypt, the Caucuses and Africa
3) The East - Centred in Atropane/Mesopotamia (Ctesiphon?), it controls Mesopotamia, Armenia, the Iranian Plateau, and the remaining eastern territory.

Do these divisions seem manageable? Would the be better governed from other locations?
 
You got me there,but to my knowledge,the Seleucids were much more successful at assimilating natives than the Ptolemies were,so shouldn't they be able to more readily replace losses than the Ptolemies who also sustained massive losses in wars?
They were, but they didn't use the natives for phalanx troops. That was reserved for Greeks and Makedonians.


But if the Seleucids' power base was in Mesopotamia,would they have been as susceptible to Roman influence as the Seleucids have been if their powerbase was in Syria?
For their powerbase to be in Mesopotamia, they would have to not have control of Syria, which was arguably the wealthiest province in their empire. That itself would pose a serious problem.
 
They were, but they didn't use the natives for phalanx troops. That was reserved for Greeks and Makedonians.



For their powerbase to be in Mesopotamia, they would have to not have control of Syria, which was arguably the wealthiest province in their empire. That itself would pose a serious problem.
Is Syria the richest province because it is where the capital's located or is the place wealthy because there's some valuable resources there?I think this needs to be clarified.To my knowledge,most of the time,the province where the capital's located is wealthy due to years of development by the government using resources from other provinces and that congregation of all the elite in the capital meant that vast industries were developed to serve the needs of the elite.For example,Guanzhong,the area where the capital of the Western Han Dynasty is located was extremely wealthy during the Western Han Dynasty,but when the capital was moved to Luoyang instead,the region rapidly declined.I have read more than enough about how people talked about how rich Syria is supposed to be during the antiquity,but I have yet to understand why exactly made it wealthy.In terms of being a trade node,Mesopotamia is also an important trade node.Mesopotamia is also graced by the Tigris and the Euphrates,so this should also give Mesopotamia plenty of farmland.During the Sassanian era,it was the wealthiest region of the Sassanian Empire.
 
Is Syria the richest province because it is where the capital's located or is the place wealthy because there's some valuable resources there?I think this needs to be clarified.To my knowledge,most of the time,the province where the capital's located is wealthy due to years of development by the government using resources from other provinces and that congregation of all the elite in the capital meant that vast industries were developed to serve the needs of the elite.I have read more than enough about how people talked about how rich Syria is supposed to be during the antiquity,but I have yet to understand why exactly made it wealthy.In terms of being a trade node,Mesopotamia is also an important trade node.Mesopotamia is also graced by the Tigris and the Euphrates,so this should also give Mesopotamia plenty of farmland.During the Sassanian era,it was the wealthiest region of the Sassanian Empire.
Syria is placed at the intersection of the Levant, Anatolia, Mesopotamia, and the Mediterranean. Any power that controls the Levant doesn't need to develop Syria, because the Levantine region does that job well enough. But for the Seleucids, developing Syria was a conscious decision precisely because of its location advantage.
 
Syria is placed at the intersection of the Levant, Anatolia, Mesopotamia, and the Mediterranean. Any power that controls the Levant doesn't need to develop Syria, because the Levantine region does that job well enough. But for the Seleucids, developing Syria was a conscious decision precisely because of its location advantage.

But Mesopotamia is equally important as a trade node.During the Abbasid era,Mesopotamia eclipsed Syria in terms of wealth.Personally,I believe Syria is the wealthiest province in the Seleucid Empire because it's where the capital's located only.Mesopotamia can probably be just as wealthy if it was where the capital's located.Like I've mentioned,being the capital gives a region a tremendous boost in wealth and development.Better yet,Mesopotamia is in the center of the empire.Alexander III definitely saw it fitting to be where his capital's located.
 
Last edited:
Syria was wealthy because the seleucids were first a foremost a Mediterranean centric empire. Their eastern territories were always periphery. Placing the capital in Mesopotamia wouldn't make much sense. Syria was a battleground during the Abbasid era, which necessarily decreased its wealth.
 
Syria was wealthy because the seleucids were first a foremost a Mediterranean centric empire. Their eastern territories were always periphery. Placing the capital in Mesopotamia wouldn't make much sense. Syria was a battleground during the Abbasid era, which necessarily decreased its wealth.
That's the problematic part.Given how little Mediterranean territory you have,why would you neglect the vast majority of your empire to emphasise on those Mediterranean territory?It simply doesn't make much sense. As for Syria being a battleground during the Abbasid era,it is worthwhile to note that there were also a lot of battles in Syria as well.During the Syrian Wars,Syria and it's adjacent regions were warzones.
 
I see you've been looking at my posts on Washington's TL.

I might be tempted to do a TL on this now that it seems people are interested.

get out of my sight

Why are you so against dividing up Empires? I find it quite fun and allows even more glorious growth and conquests.

Ctesiphon will most likely fulfill this role

Eh, there are any number of cities that could be a capital. Or they could be like Ancient Japan and move capitals all the time.

But I would think a Capital in Babylon or closer to the Persian gulf would be good. However if you wanna make an awesome TL you should have them find the Ruins of Akkad and rebuild it as their capital.

Antioch might work

except it's in the Realm of another Empire.

Also far away from Persia

the richest province of the Empire

They can make up for it by far with the Fertile areas around the Tigris and Euphrates rivers and Hyrcania.
Given how little Mediterranean territory you have,why would you neglect the vast majority of your empire to emphasis on those Mediterranean territory?It simply doesn't make much sense

This, Persian Gulf and Caspian Sea all the way. If they can get Naval Tech down they could hire loads of Mercenaries from East Africa. Also if they can conquer up to Bactria or at least have regular trade to that point then they should get into contact with the Chinese fairly quickly.
 
I see you've been looking at my posts on Washington's TL.

Lies! T'was totally original.... *cough*

Although, I just thought, I've posited three, because Persia and Germania are huge additions.

If the colossal Empire of Empires extended into Central Asia, do you think that would be spun off into an Empire/Kingdom of its own rather than as Roman Territory?
 
If the colossal Empire of Empires extended into Central Asia, do you think that would be spun off into an Empire/Kingdom of its own rather than as Roman Territory?

I think we'd see a situation like Byzantium where they adopt the culture of the land they are situated in but given that the Romans still have disdain for the Persians after all the times Persia trolled Rome. And with the fact the Greeks have left a substantial influence there we might see a hybrid of Roman-Greco-Persian culture in the hierarchy. However like I said they could hire loads of African Mercenaries and when they're done their service they could be given farms. This wouldn't be a problem because the average peasantry already hate the Romans so importing a replacement populace from anywhere could temporarily destabilize things but if done right would make everything better in the long run.

But just like the Eastern Roman Empire it could get construed as being an entirely different empire from Rome. So unless the Emperor of ITTL's east calls himself Shanasha (King of Kings) then I don't think it'll just revert into a Persian Empire with all traces of Roman ancestry gone.
 
I think we'd see a situation like Byzantium where they adopt the culture of the land they are situated in but given that the Romans still have disdain for the Persians after all the times Persia trolled Rome. And with the fact the Greeks have left a substantial influence there we might see a hybrid of Roman-Greco-Persian culture in the hierarchy. However like I said they could hire loads of African Mercenaries and when they're done their service they could be given farms. This wouldn't be a problem because the average peasantry already hate the Romans so importing a replacement populace from anywhere could temporarily destabilize things but if done right would make everything better in the long run.

But just like the Eastern Roman Empire it could get construed as being an entirely different empire from Rome. So unless the Emperor of ITTL's east calls himself Shanasha (King of Kings) then I don't think it'll just revert into a Persian Empire with all traces of Roman ancestry gone.

I meant more specifically the Transoxus. (The modern Stans). I'd love to see the Roman Kingdom of Bactria. It'd be a fun way for Rome and China to interact!

But yeah, I think you're probably right.
 
The problem with Rome expanding deep into northern Europe and Asia is Rome was a Mediterranean centric empire. Rome was able to easily manage such a large empire because the Mediterranean acted as a super highway, along with rivers like the Rhine, Danube, Rhone, etc. That allowed for fast and easy travel and communication (especially when supplemented with Rome's road network).

The further into the interior you get, the longer the conmunication, supply, and travel lines. Whereas the distance between Rome and Alexandria is bridged by the Mediterranean, the same is not true between Antioch and Persepolis, for example. You could get the Roman Empire to the Elbe and Babylonia/Mesopotamia, but any further in either direction is unfeasible.
 
I meant more specifically the Transoxus. (The modern Stans). I'd love to see the Roman Kingdom of Bactria. It'd be a fun way for Rome and China to interact!

But yeah, I think you're probably right.

They would probably be better off establishing client states in that region, possibly booting out unruly natives in Persia and sending them to Bactria. Then give the land to Latins or Greeks.

Mediterranean centric empire

Thats why you Split it into a Northern one sort of like the Frankish Empire under Charlemagne, a Southern one which would be the Quiet territories of Hispania, Africa, Aegyptus, Greece, Illyria, Anatolia, Syria, and so on you get the Picture. And then you have an Empire in Persia.

Or you could do it differently but what I'm mainly getting at is if Rome is to survive Rome is going to have to branch out and change.

between Antioch and Persepolis

This Persian Roman Empire would most likely not have any holdings in the Mediterranean sea
 
Top