AHC : A Roman Empire in Three Parts

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.

If it was this easy, the seleucids would have done this a long time ago.

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.
That requires a foresight, ambition, and need that simply was not present and never would be present. The empire has no need to expand this way at all, and no need to arbitrarily divide it up into 3.

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.
Rome doesn't need to arbitrarily expand into functionally useless territory to survive. Why does Rome need the mountainous and hard to control and manage areas of Persia when they could already have access to the Indian ocean, and thus bypass the land trade entirely, by controlling Mesopotamia?


This Persian Roman Empire would most likely not have any holdings in the Mediterranean sea
That would never happen. Not only does it make no economic sense-access to the Mediterranean afforded access to an incredibly lucrative market-for that reason it was the principal goal of every civilization centered in the middle east going back to the Achaemenids at least, and its value was not lost on the Assyrians and Babylonians either. Seleucus went to great lengths to control Syria, which was just a rural desert with few urban centers to speak of before he built it up, just to have access to the Mediterranean. The Parthians and the Sassanians, had they possessed the military capability to do so, would have liked nothing more than to have a Mediterranean port.
 
If it was this easy, the seleucids would have done this a long time ago.

But they didn't have access to all the resources and knowledge of Imperium Roma.

That requires a foresight, ambition, and need that simply was not present and never would be present. The empire has no need to expand this way at all, and no need to arbitrarily divide it up into 3.

It's not about what the Empire needs, it's about what the Empire must.

Also dividing it into three allowed it so that the West (or whatever you divide it into, I was just giving possible examples) and the far east would be under political threat of the central Eastern Empire. because the West/North would be so far away from Persia they wouldn't really have to compete over anything and thus would make good allies against the central empire.

The Central empire would be powerful enough to beat any of the empires one on one, however if the west and far east empire would ally the Central would most likely loose.

The Central empire knows this and would be hesitant to walk on any thin ice when dealing with the other Empires.

Rome doesn't need to arbitrarily expand into functionally useless territory to survive.

No, but it needs to subjugate lands or at least properly defend against that have since time immemorial have spawned invaders intent on pillaging innocent civilians and take their territory from them.

Why does Rome need the mountainous and hard to control and manage areas of Persia

Because that territory is a breeding ground for powerful Kingdoms and Mesopotamia alone isn't the most defensible of places, any expenses used in the massive projects of defending Mesopotamia could be used to conquer Persia and probably have some left over.

access to the Indian ocean, and thus bypass the land trade entirely

Yes they have access to the Indian ocean which could be good for trade with India which has been found they did. However the Romans weren't very known for their seamanship in open seas so India alone is an achievement and expecting them to sail all around southeast Asia in lands were there is a huuuuge language barrier where no one has ever heard of Latin or Greek.

Much easier to do business with some Nomadic folks who can speak Chinese. I'm not saying that it'll never happen but getting to China from the Indian Ocean before going Via Bactria and the Tarim Basin is ridiculous.

Not only does it make no economic sense

The Parthians did pretty well, and trade with the far east means that merchants will be willing and able to make a short trek from the upper parts of the rivers to the Antioch area. They could even set up a portage system like they did at Corinth when they realized that a Canal wasn't feasible.

principal goal of every civilization centered in the middle east going back to the Achaemenids at least

Perhaps they could gain territory on the Med later after the Byzantines begin to Decline. But trying to get into the Mediterranean has also ruined a few Empires, Akkad for example. The Persian gulf and the Indian Ocean should have sufficient enough trade to keep them afloat.

would have liked nothing more than to have a Mediterranean port

Eh, it isn't that big of a deal given the divide of the Empire is purely Administrative. Sure civil wars are very familiar to Rome but as long as the Romano-Persians have good relations with Byzantium they should still get all the benefits of trade. Same with the Byzantines and the Indian Ocean/Silk Road.
 
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.



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



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.



except it's in the Realm of another Empire.

Also far away from Persia



They can make up for it by far with the Fertile areas around the Tigris and Euphrates rivers and Hyrcania.


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.
Been doing so thinking.You are probably right that a capital in Hyrcania's good.Without having to fight wars with the Middle Empire,the real threat to the Roman-Persian Empire would be to the north.While Mesopotamia is rich,it's far from the center of the empire.It's always better if the capital is in the center of the empire.
 
You are probably right that a capital in Hyrcania's good

I don't think I ever said that but I suppose that could work if you wanted to conquer what Alexander the Great did but I was thinking more of a clinging to the Coastline kind of Empire but your idea works but Persepolis is also relatively in the middle of the Empire, heck why not cement your rule there and build a whole new city with all the latest technologies.

But a Capital in Hyrcania would allow an Invasion of the Volga River delta, buuut I feel as if I have said that too many times by this point.

It's always better if the capital is in the center of the empire.

Center means in the center of North and south too and unless the Entire Caspian sea area gets conquered Hyrcania is going to be in on one of the most North most areas (that is of course you don't pull an Alexander the great where you try and conquer Bactria)
 
I don't think I ever said that but I suppose that could work if you wanted to conquer what Alexander the Great did but I was thinking more of a clinging to the Coastline kind of Empire but your idea works but Persepolis is also relatively in the middle of the Empire, heck why not cement your rule there and build a whole new city with all the latest technologies.

But a Capital in Hyrcania would allow an Invasion of the Volga River delta, buuut I feel as if I have said that too many times by this point.



Center means in the center of North and south too and unless the Entire Caspian sea area gets conquered Hyrcania is going to be in on one of the most North most areas (that is of course you don't pull an Alexander the great where you try and conquer Bactria)
It's northish,but it's still in the center.In terms of east and west.It also allows you to focus on fighting the nomads,which would be the main threat.Persepolis can probably work as well considering how long the Achaemends have been there,but what are the conditions of the location around Persepolis during this period?I'm not that familiar with the geography and history of Iran.
 
It's northish,but it's still in the center.In terms of east and west.It also allows you to focus on fighting the nomads,which would be the main threat.Persepolis can probably work as well considering how long the Achaemends have been there,but what are the conditions of the location around Persepolis during this period?I'm not that familiar with the geography and history of Iran.

Well for one Iran wasn't NEARLY as dry as it is now, and given Persepolis is close to the coast it should have enough water to be a capital Area.
 
Well for one Iran wasn't NEARLY as dry as it is now, and given Persepolis is close to the coast it should have enough water to be a capital Area.
I assume they can supply the capital easily by shipping food from Mesopotamia via the Persia Gulf?What about the geography about Persepolis itself?Is it easily defensible?
 
I assume they can supply the capital easily by shipping food from Mesopotamia via the Persia Gulf?What about the geography about Persepolis itself?Is it easily defensible?

Not entirely sure but it is a major city of Persia and I suspect some of the old fortifications of Alexander the Great's era or even before then are still hanging around and with some maintenance could be jolly and good. But as one of the biggest cities if not the biggest city in Persia it's bound to have everything necessary for a Capital.

Although Ekbatana might be a better place for a Capital now that I think about it if Armenia is going to be a part of it.
 
Not entirely sure but it is a major city of Persia and I suspect some of the old fortifications of Alexander the Great's era or even before then are still hanging around and with some maintenance could be jolly and good. But as one of the biggest cities if not the biggest city in Persia it's bound to have everything necessary for a Capital.

Although Ekbatana might be a better place for a Capital now that I think about it if Armenia is going to be a part of it.
Not entirely sure.I know some capital cities in China that aren't really suited to be the capital logistically e.g. Beijing and Chang'an.Supplying them was a major headache for emperors,especially Chang'an,with the emperor frequently having to travel outside it during times of famine in order for his court and entourage to be supplied.

As for being a defensible area,I mean is there a lot of valleys,mountains and rivers around the city that can make the city defensible?It's not a good idea if your capital is located in a plain where the only thing that can impede an enemy advance towards your capital would be the armies defending it.The region around Milan for example is surrounded by mountains and rivers(it's actually my personal favorite for being the capital of the WRE).Ravenna itself is surrounded by swamps.Constantinople is surrounded on three sides by the sea.The area around Chang'an is surrounded by mountains.This is what I meant by how defensible is the capital.
 
Last edited:
Top