AHC: Rome keeps Mesopotamia

The Romans (as the Byzantines and the Ottomans) never conquered Persia proper which was the real core of the Parthian/Sassanid Empire.

BUT - they don't need to. Persia proper was ruled by Vologases III, who was more pro-Roman. Besides, even if your Parthian client state is only the western parts of Parthia, that;s still more than enough to serve as a shield.
 
BUT - they don't need to. Persia proper was ruled by Vologases III, who was more pro-Roman. Besides, even if your Parthian client state is only the western parts of Parthia, that;s still more than enough to serve as a shield.

But unlike the client states in Gaul , Greece and Africa, the Persians were too out of reach to be really subdued and eventually annexed .

The Roman hold on those Persian clients had to be tenuos and short term at best
 
What does Rome need to hold Mesopotamia:

1.Keep Trajan healthy.
2.No Jewish uprising and fights in Dacia
3.Make Lusius Quietus Trajan's heir so we have a military skilled Emperor in the East.

I think you're missing the big picture here.

Do you know how many Roman-Persian and Ottoman-Persian wars are historically recorded?

Crassus, Marc Anthony and the various Ottoman Sultans would had conquered Persia if there was an opportunity to do so.

If they never did it's not because Persians were superhumans, but IMHO because logistics made always their victories ephemeral .

So even if you put a guy in charge instead of another it doesn't mean that history is going to be altered that much.
 
I think you're missing the big picture here.

Do you know how many Roman-Persian and Ottoman-Persian wars are historically recorded?

Crassus, Marc Anthony and the various Ottoman Sultans would had conquered Persia if there was an opportunity to do so.

If they never did it's not because Persians were superhumans, but IMHO because logistics made always their victories ephemeral .

So even if you put a guy in charge instead of another it doesn't mean that history is going to be altered that much.

This. At most you might get something like what Athelstane mentioned earlier. At worst you wind up with an overextended frontier.
 
I think you're missing the big picture here.

Do you know how many Roman-Persian and Ottoman-Persian wars are historically recorded?

Crassus, Marc Anthony and the various Ottoman Sultans would had conquered Persia if there was an opportunity to do so.

If they never did it's not because Persians were superhumans, but IMHO because logistics made always their victories ephemeral .

So even if you put a guy in charge instead of another it doesn't mean that history is going to be altered that much.

Yes there were many Romans and various other generals who tried to conquer it. And do you know why? Because they saw a real chance of succeding IMO.

And there was Alexander ;) who actually conquered Persia with a powerbase in Europe! Though he wasn't really able to secure it, but even the Seleucids did hold it for quite a long time even though they were mainly busy in the west.

And this other guy was quite a skilled general who was far more aggresive than Handrian.
 
Yes there were many Romans and various other generals who tried to conquer it. And do you know why? Because they saw a real chance of succeding IMO.

And there was Alexander ;) who actually conquered Persia with a powerbase in Europe! Though he wasn't really able to secure it, but even the Seleucids did hold it for quite a long time even though they were mainly busy in the west.

And this other guy was quite a skilled general who was far more aggresive than Handrian.

And it seems that these generals were mistaken ... except for Alexander the Great who in addition to his genius had phalanxes that were truly superior to anything the Persians could throw against it at that time.

The Romans didn't have this kind of advantage against the Parthians and the Sassanids instead

The Seleucid base was in the Middle East so they cannot be included in the discussion
 
The Seleucid base was in the Middle East so they cannot be included in the discussion


The Seleucid "base" was wherever there was a large enough hellenistic military-settler colony. This means they got their "core" troops from western Anatolia (until they lost it to Pergamon and Rome), Bactria (untill it revolted), Mesopotamia and Syria.

They also recruited extensively cavalry from Media, hoplite mercenaries from Greece, and light infantry from peoples like Celts, Arabs, Jews or Persians. Also, towards the end of their empire, Persian, Assirian etc. (i.e. non-Greek) phalangites were becoming ever more common.
 
Top