AHC:Have the Roman Empire not permanently divide

RousseauX

Donor
Actually until the 3rd century military commands and civil offices were almost always combined, or at least alternately staffed with the same people. So I do not understand this argument. At least not for the principate.

Ok, I didn't know that, I was thinking about rebellions during/after the crisis of the third century.
 
The problem is that the empire likely can't afford 6-10 new legions.

The Romans fundamentally ran into the problem of diminishing returns when it come to conquests, by the 100s AD there aren't many wealthy, easily defensible pieces of territory to conquer anymore because all the easily lootable territories have already being conquered. If Rome conquers and tries to hold Mesopotamia, it runs into (just as it did OTL), the problem that the territories don't generate enough revenue to cover the expense of keeping them. Conquests become a losing business proposition.

I agree to this argument for every new province but Mesopotamia. Mesopotamia was probably as rich and populated like Asia, the richest province of the roman empire. Perhaps not rich enough to feed 6-10 new legions, but not comparable to Germania Magna, Caledonia, Marcomannia or whatever other expansion comes to mind.

Add the tributes of the client Kings: Media, Persis, Susiana and Characene (trade to India) and you get a lot of money.
 
The problem is that the empire likely can't afford 6-10 new legions.

The Romans fundamentally ran into the problem of diminishing returns when it come to conquests, by the 100s AD there aren't many wealthy, easily defensible pieces of territory to conquer anymore because all the easily lootable territories have already being conquered. If Rome conquers and tries to hold Mesopotamia, it runs into (just as it did OTL), the problem that the territories don't generate enough revenue to cover the expense of keeping them. Conquests become a losing business proposition.

Mesopotamia though was a treasure trove of riches. It had everything you require in a province-a direct trade link to the Indian Ocean and thus helping to cut out Persian middlemen; an insanely fertile and well urbanized province. Densely populated by the standards of the time. And just all in all very wealthy. It was probably wealthier than Egypt and Syria, the two wealthiest provinces in the empire.
 

RousseauX

Donor
Is it enough to support 6-10 legions though?

That would be expanding the total size of the empire's armies by 20-33% relative to its height.
 
Mesopotamia doesn't seem all that defensible against invasion from Iran or Arabia though. And even if it is made so or I'm missing something that would make it more defensible, the fact is that it will be a perpetual money sink.

For the idea proposed of establishing client Kings in Persia, that will last about until the first nomadic tribe comes in off the steppe and wrecks all of that and then keeps moving west. It happened a fair number of times between 1 and 1500 AD.

I'm just seeing this as a good long-term strategy. The Roman plan of fortifying their border and occasionally raiding Mesopotamia worked just fine, and the Romans had a good track record against the Parthian armies. If they just ensured the Parthians weren't wiped out, they would never have to face any stronger opponent.

The problem is convincing the Romans that the Parthians are actually a better enemy than the alternative (who is likely to be more powerful).
 
Mesopotamia though was a treasure trove of riches. It had everything you require in a province-a direct trade link to the Indian Ocean and thus helping to cut out Persian middlemen; an insanely fertile and well urbanized province. Densely populated by the standards of the time. And just all in all very wealthy. It was probably wealthier than Egypt and Syria, the two wealthiest provinces in the empire.

So where does the expansion have to go to create a good buffer zone for Mesopotamia?
 
So where does the expansion have to go to create a good buffer zone for Mesopotamia?

As I already proposed above, a provincialisation of Armenia and Mesopotamia (except Characene) might be sufficient. Of course the Zagros-Mountains are a lousy border from a military point of view. Therefore you need buffer-states up to the iranian deserts, which could be Media Adiabadene, Media Atropatene, Susiana and Characene. It is also a good idea to control the King of Persis. Best case the King of Parthia, too. But that might not work that good, because he is far away.

For such a scenario you need at least one campaign up to Persis and Parthia and you have to beat them all, or at least they have to accept the roman emperor as their new King of Kings.

The key is to avoid, that they ever unite again under a King of Kings. Even if just 2 of them form a coalition against Rome, the empire might be in trouble. But with legions nearby in Mesopotamia and Armenia, control should be possible. Some TLs did something similar, but they implemented just one parthian client-king for all these regions east of Mesopotamia. I doubt this would work. Mesopotamia is the richest province of the parthian empire, but that does not mean, that the rest has not the power in terms of economy and population to strike back. You have to desintegrate the parthian empire, by cutting it into small independent pieces. At least near your new border.

Another option is a border at the iranian deserts with a provincialization of Media, and perhaps Persis. From a military point of view this is the far better border. My problem is, that as more eastern provinces you create far away from Rome, as more you run into a cultural and political nightmare. Already Mesopotamia could mean, that you overstretch the empire. Not from a military point of view. You overstretch the capabilities of an ancient centralistic governement. And centralism is one key-success-factor of the roman empire.

PS: I forgot the Caucasus north of Armenia. Of course another three client Kings: Albania, Iberia and Colchis.
 
Last edited:
As I already proposed above, a provincialisation of Armenia and Mesopotamia (except Characene) might be sufficient. Of course the Zagros-Mountains are a lousy border from a military point of view. Therefore you need buffer-states up to the iranian deserts, which could be Media Adiabadene, Media Atropatene, Susiana and Characene. It is also a good idea to control the King of Persis. Best case the King of Parthia, too. But that might not work that good, because he is far away.

For such a scenario you need at least one campaign up to Persis and Parthia and you have to beat them all, or at least they have to accept the roman emperor as their new King of Kings.

The key is to avoid, that they ever unite again under a King of Kings. Even if just 2 of them form a coalition against Rome, the empire might be in trouble. But with legions nearby in Mesopotamia and Armenia, control should be possible. Some TLs did something similar, but they implemented just one parthian client-king for all these regions east of Mesopotamia. I doubt this would work. Mesopotamia is the richest province of the parthian empire, but that does not mean, that the rest has not the power in terms of economy and population to strike back. You have to desintegrate the parthian empire, by cutting it into small independent pieces. At least near your new border.

Another option is a border at the iranian deserts with a provincialization of Media, and perhaps Persis. From a military point of view this is the far better border. My problem is, that as more eastern provinces you create far away from Rome, as more you run into a cultural and political nightmare. Already Mesopotamia could mean, that you overstretch the empire. Not from a military point of view. You overstretch the capabilities of an ancient centralistic governement. And centralism is one key-success-factor of the roman empire.

PS: I forgot the Caucasus north of Armenia. Of course another three client Kings: Albania, Iberia and Colchis.
Interesting are there any time lines that go for these strategies
 
Top