AHC/WI: Rome and Persia both thrive

Admittedly, this is mostly based on the rule of cool, but...

Is there a way for the Graeco-Roman and Persian civilizations to end up with these approximate borders around the XI-XII centuries, with a POD after the death of Augustus, and keep them this way long-term? Could such a balance of power remain mostly stable, or are these borders simply way to fragile to stand the test of time?
upload_2018-2-12_11-30-6.png
 
Ignoring the pink bits and the Roman colonies in West Africa, which are implausible, I would give both Cyrenaica and the Aegean Coast to Rome.

Persia would definitely have the upper hand, though.
 
Too many barbarians coming from the Eurasian Steppe which make the long term stability of Rome and Persia difficult at best. And then consider the barbarians from the southern fringe, the Berbers and the Arabs.

Persia is definitely more exposed to outside threats, though, plus also has the problem of strong Indian states emerging to seize their wealthy territory around the Indus. This might be even more of a problem as the Viking Age is for Rome, or in general the effects of the heavy plow in Northern Europe which allowed for more complex states in the region meaning potential threats to Rome.

Basically, we can expect several quite brutal periods of fragmentation in both states over the centuries, much like China (or Persia).

Ignoring the pink bits and the Roman colonies in West Africa, which are implausible, I would give both Cyrenaica and the Aegean Coast to Rome.

Persia would definitely have the upper hand, though.

Strategically, it's easier to defend Cyrenaica from Egypt than it is from Carthage/Tripolitania, thanks to the Gulf of Syrte's difficult navigation conditions and the fact the region between Tripolitania and Cyrenaica's population centers was sparsely populated and poorly watered.

I don't see why Roman colonies in West Africa would be so implausible, although I think they're in the wrong place. Dakar or Saint-Louis is probably better than Gambia or Casamance. The New World colonies are rather implausible, though, as is the fact Rome does not control the rest of Mauretania.
 
That scenario gives Persia the entire control of the East-West trade route, which actually might be the cause for all the redness around the Atlantic.
The bigger problem is the lack of Egyptian wheat.

If you wanna go for a double wank, give Egypt back to Rome and give Persia outposts in India!
 
Nobody ever passed Cape Bojador successfully before the fifteenth century. Moroccans shipwrecked on the Senegambian coast has to come home across the Sahara because the seas were so difficult.

Hanno the Navigator might have sailed south of Cape Bojador. And with good shipbuilding, skilled navigators, and a desire to reach sub-Saharan Africa by sea, it isn't an insurmountable obstacle. If we go by the map and have most of Mauretanian given to presumably Berbers and others, then it's possible Rome might not have as much control of the trans-Saharan trade routes as they would want to. Instead of organising a campaign in the Atlas, they could instead give support to seafarers and navigators and shipbuilders to try and reach the area by sea. From there, Dakar and Saint-Louis are natural sites for trading posts which could over time expand into colonies.
 
Why the hell does Persia owns Egypt, Turkey and Levant?

No why in Pluto would Rome gives up Egypt, let alone Turkey and the Levant? Same for Syria.
 
To be honest, if you're wanting to balance the two civilisations, I think a brilliant PoD is the potential adoption of Khosrau II. (Yes, THAT Khosrau)

The borders of the two Empires at the time are good - if they can continue a level of co-operation permenantly, and solidify a long-term border, then it'll do well for both.

But if you're looking at Greco-Roman civilisation, you've got to remember. Most of the Levant, Anatolia, and Egypt would have been Greco-Roman (by some criteria). So your map doesn't create balance, it turns the Romans into a peripheral European Empire that is reduced to a Persian Satellite.

Another PoD would be Maurice. He had good relations with the Persians before Phocas threw that into disarray.
 
To be honest, if you're wanting to balance the two civilisations, I think a brilliant PoD is the potential adoption of Khosrau II. (Yes, THAT Khosrau)

The borders of the two Empires at the time are good - if they can continue a level of co-operation permenantly, and solidify a long-term border, then it'll do well for both.

But if you're looking at Greco-Roman civilisation, you've got to remember. Most of the Levant, Anatolia, and Egypt would have been Greco-Roman (by some criteria). So your map doesn't create balance, it turns the Romans into a peripheral European Empire that is reduced to a Persian Satellite.

Another PoD would be Maurice. He had good relations with the Persians before Phocas threw that into disarray.

I would not call Rome a 'European Empire that is reduced to a Persian Satellite' but your right about everything else. Stopping the Byzantine–Sasanian War of 602–628 would be a good POD to use. (Which in turn keeps the two Empire strong and stable to the point of keeping the Arabs out.)
 
Hanno the Navigator might have sailed south of Cape Bojador.
I don't find Hasdrubal's story particularly reliable.

it isn't an insurmountable obstacle.
If so, why did absolutely nobody successfully cross it for sure before advanced Portuguese shipbuilding technology?

it's possible Rome might not have as much control of the trans-Saharan trade routes as they would want to.
Rome didn't really know very much, or care very much, about the Sahel. All trade (which was very little compared to post-Islamic days) was mediated by the Garamantes and other Berbers, and Rome was perfectly fine with that.

it turns the Romans into a peripheral European Empire that is reduced to a Persian Satellite.
The OTL situation, basically opposing a Mediterranean and Mesopotamian empire, was quite unbalanced in favor of Rome, actually. How many times did Rome reach Ctesiphon, compared to Persia reaching even the Aegean?
 
I would not call Rome a 'European Empire that is reduced to a Persian Satellite' but your right about everything else. Stopping the Byzantine–Sasanian War of 602–628 would be a good POD to use. (Which in turn keeps the two Empire strong and stable to the point of keeping the Arabs out.)

Without most of the Eastern possessions? Romes wealth was the East, in Anatolia, Syria and Egypt. Greece is good and all, but it doesn't balance the losses.

The OTL situation, basically opposing a Mediterranean and Mesopotamian empire, was quite unbalanced in favor of Rome, actually. How many times did Rome reach Ctesiphon, compared to Persia reaching even the Aegean?

It certainly was, but there is a difference in dropping Syria, the Levant and Egypt, and also dropping Anatolia - it takes the majority of the wealth of the eastern med and given it to Persia.

I'd say it was more balanced if Anatolia stayed Roman - if only because it works as a great natural fortress, and as a "You invade, we cut you off" position - better for balance IMO
 
What if we balanced it oit by giving egypt and far western anatolia (the aegean/marmara coast) to rome and leaving the levant and the rest of anatolia to persia? This balances it out while keeping the only land borders relatively compact in anatolia and sinai
 
Admittedly, this is mostly based on the rule of cool, but...

Is there a way for the Graeco-Roman and Persian civilizations to end up with these approximate borders around the XI-XII centuries, with a POD after the death of Augustus, and keep them this way long-term? Could such a balance of power remain mostly stable, or are these borders simply way to fragile to stand the test of time?
View attachment 370117

I think this is possible with an aborted conquest by Alexander. It allows the Achamenids to hold Anatolia, the Levant and Egypt and also butterflies away Abrahamic universalism, which was a major source of later Roman/Byzantine-Sassanid wars.
 
If the POD is after Augustus, and you end up with that map, I can think of two major problems (well 3, but I'm looking at just the Roman/Persian border) for the Persians. One is Egypt-Persian control of Egypt is going to be very tenuous at the best of times, and with a Roman Empire nearby to encourage revolts, I'm not sure it's something they can even hold onto longterm. The next problem is Anatolia-it's terrain and history of political fragmentation makes direct control very difficult, and, again, with a powerful empire right next door, Persian rule would probably be weak, even before you consider the greek cities dotting the coastline that would probably be more inclined to ally with Rome.
 
I’d give Anatolia up to the Taurus mountains to Rome. This scenario as-is postulates a dramatic and disastrous reversal for Rome which when combined with Germanic invasions would probably lead to a fragmentation of the Empire.

If Rome loses Syria, Armenia, and Egypt, with a post-Christian PoD they lose a bunch of restless religious minorities at the cost of valuable agricultural land. If they lose Anatolia, they lose a key, “properly Christian” part of the Empire that threatens Greece and even potentially Italia itself.

EDIT: It would have to be all the way to the Taurus to create a properly defensible border, as Anatolia generally resolves to all-or-nothing control.
 
Last edited:
Top