Artabanus V victory at Hormozdgan.

[Historyman 14]

As it said, if Artabanus was victorious, killing Ardashir, and stillborn the Sasanian Empire. What now? How much time does this gives the Parthians? Another rebel satrap overthrows Parthians, but instead continue the Pro-Hellenism tolerance of the Parthians? (And not the OTL Sasanian Empire promoting a more pure Iranian identity and enforce State Zoroastrianism.)

 

[Flavius Iulius Nepos]

I am not sure the Arsacids were destined to lose their empire to a native persian dinasty but i doubt that the immediate successors of Artabanus would be as skilled as Ardashir or Shapur. This alone would have positive effects on the romans and their eastern limes at least in the short term, so it s difficult to see in this alternate timeline something similar to a roman emperor being capture by an eastern ruler and the subsequent devastation of the eastern provinces. However if the crisis still strike Rome hard, we could see some small parthian expedition and success aimed at restoring the Arsadics prestige by avenging previous humiliation inflicted by the Romans. This could be a turning point for the parthian state if they are lucky/skilled enough.

 

[Historyman 14]

I am not sure the Arsacids were destined to lose their empire to a native persian dinasty but i doubt that the immediate successors of Artabanus would be as skilled as Ardashir or Shapur. This alone would have positive effects on the romans and their eastern limes at least in the short term, so it s difficult to see in this alternate timeline something similar to a roman emperor being capture by an eastern ruler and the subsequent devastation of the eastern provinces. However if the crisis still strike Rome hard, we could see some small parthian expedition and success aimed at restoring the Arsadics prestige by avenging previous humiliation inflicted by the Romans. This could be a turning point for the parthian state if they are lucky/skilled enough.

It would be interesting to see the Parthians be able to make a comeback if everything goes right and if Artabanus and whoever comes after him is able to keep the satraps in line. (Using the failure of Ardashir as a example.) Even win a few victories against the Romans to give new glory to the Arsacids . (Taking back Mesopotamia, or something like that.)

It would also be interesting to see the cultural affects from an lack of a Zoroastrianism reform, revival, and/or enforcement as under the OTL Sasanians, and the lack of persecution of other religious groups, and the longer survival Hellenistic cultural influence, and syncretism that also went under thanks to Kartir and the Sasanians.

 

[Flavius Iulius Nepos]

Indeed it would be interesting to see the effects this would have on Eastern Hellenism, however i think in the long term some kind of decline would be unavoidable but nothing is certain or predestined.
On the political note, i remember that the Parthians were a semi feudal state, with lots of petty kings fighting each other and sometimes even their liege,sometimes successful as the last one proved. Before any adventure outside their empire they first need some sort of centralization, in order to reinforce their hold on the furthest provinces. They also have to end their civil war between the two brothers (Artabanus and Vologase) and stabilize the succession, a problem they had in common with the Romans. Without this they are in no position to attack the Romans, at best they can expect peace with them while they are busy with their own crisis.

 

[alcibiades]

Nice thread, I think the Parthians still had some life left in them yet. First Artabanus would need to finish off his brother Vologases VI held up in Babylon. Then hopefully he can bring a period of stability to the Empire. Artabanus support base seems to have been largely centered on the western portion of the empire. Both the Kings of Armenia and Hatra were Arsacids and supported the remaining Parthian nobility against Ardashir. In OTL Artabanus son Artavazdes seems to have resisted for a bit after his father's death coins were found to him in Khorramabad and Nahavand. To summarize the Parthians could easily hold the western half for a while longer but beyond that it might be a problem. I don't know what would stop other people like Ardashir from popping up in the east.

Now the effect on Rome is also interesting. The failure of Alexander Severus' eastern campaign lead directly to his overthrow. Severus' failure to save his southern spearhead and his inglorious retreat from back to Antioch unjustly got him branded as a coward by the rank and file. Artabanus seems to have wanted peaceful relations with Rome, offering Caracalla and Macrinus opportunities. If this can be achieved the two rulers can help each other or the Parthians could attack Rome for hopefully an easy victory.

 

[Flavius Iulius Nepos]

Nice thread, I think the Parthians still had some life left in them yet. First off Artabanus would need to finish off his brother Vologases VI held up in Babylon. Then hopefully he can bring a period of stability to the Empire. Artabanus support base seems to have been largely centered on the western portion of the empire. Both the Kings of Armenia and Hatra were Arsacids and supported the remaining Parthian nobility against Ardashir. In OTL Artabanus son Artavazdes seems to have resisted for a bit after his father's death coins were found to him in Khorramabad and Nahavand. To summarize the Parthians could easily hold the western half for a while longer but beyond that it might be a problem. I don't know what would stop other people like Ardashir from popping up in the east.

Now the effect on Rome is also interesting. The failure of Alexander Severus' eastern campaign lead directly to his overthrow. Severus' failure to save his southern spearhead and his inglorious retreat from back to Antioch unjustly got him branded as a coward by the rank and file. Artabanus seems to have wanted peaceful relations with Rome, offering Caracalla and Macrinus opportunities. If this came be achieved the two rulers can help each other or they could attack them for hopefully an easy victory.

I don't know if Alexander Severus' campaign can be considered a failure. The responsibility of the death of the last of the Severans is something that must be attributed to the Germanic campaign and the subsequent dissatisfaction among his soldiers in my opinion.
True the Arsacids were more "philoromans" than the Sassanids would ever be, so i think a different Hormozdgan could have a positive effect on both empires, provided you find a roman emperor who is not a gloryseeker but willing to establish peaceful relations with East, something that would radically change the course of the roman empire, no longer forced to focus on the East to the detriment of the West

 

[alcibiades]

I don't know if Alexander Severus' campaign can be considered a failure. The responsibility of the death of the last of the Severans is something that must be attributed to the Germanic campaign and the subsequent dissatisfaction among his soldiers in my opinion.
True the Arsacids were more "philoromans" than the Sassanids would ever be, so i think a different Hormozdgan could have a positive effect on both empires, provided you find a roman emperor who is not a gloryseeker but willing to establish peaceful relations with East, something that would radically change the course of the roman empire, no longer forced to focus on the East to the detriment of the West

I will agree with you that Severus' campaign wasn't a total failure. The northern wing of his army achieved a fair amount of success in Media-Northern Mesopotamia. The failure of the southern spearhead wasn't his fault, the commander was too overaggressive. The central body was suffering from disease and logistical difficulties which again wasn't really Alexander's fault. The soldiers however blamed the emperor for "abandoning" the southern wing by retreating to Antioch. In my opinion the Germanic campaign finally pushed things over the edge but the failure in the east made his overthrow probably inevitable.

Very good points in regard to the Arsacids.

 

[Flavius Iulius Nepos]

I will agree with you that Severus' campaign wasn't a total failure. The northern wing of his army achieved a fair amount of success in Media-Northern Mesopotamia. The failure of the southern spearhead wasn't his fault, the commander was too overaggressive. The central body was suffering from disease and logistical difficulties which again wasn't really Alexander's fault. The soldiers however blamed the emperor for "abandoning" the southern wing by retreating to Antioch. In my opinion the Germanic campaign finally pushed things over the edge but the failure in the east made his overthrow probably inevitable.

Very good points in regard to the Arsacids.

Even with the death of Alexander Severus, in my opinion, the crisis of the third century is not something definitive, it can be adverted or at least the Romans can reduce the size of it.
Gordianus III seemed a really popular guy, someone who could establish a new and stable dynasty but his death against the Sassanids/assassination by Philippus after his eastern unsuccess ( i am not sure which one happened) was what throw again the empire in the mess of the civil war for 15 years, than again after a brief period of relative "peace" the disaster of Edessa really crippled the empire.The sassanids had a talent for causing really hard headache to the romans, something the Arsacids didn't have, not even during the aftermath of the battle of Carrhae. So we can conclude that, with the right choice, an Arsacids Parthia would have positive effects on Rome. The problem here,without constantly derailing the thread toward Rome, is how can the Parthian benefit from this situation? What do they have to do in order to keep the throne and end the tradition of being the punching bag of Rome?

 

[Historyman 14]

Honesty, I feel Rome and Parthia could be friends, or at least stay normally friendly with each other. Anything would be better then the endless tug of war Rome (Later Eastern Romans.) and Persia seem trapped in OTL, and that pretty much doomed them both. Anything that can reach a long term truce and status quo ante and stop the destruction of the later wars.

Both the Romans and Parthia can reap the benefits with all the saved money that was being pour into their eastern/western borders. It would help Parthia won't be anything like the OTL expansionist, militarist Sassanids, at least for a good, good while with them as Flavius pointed out the Arsacids would push for peaceful relations and a Roman Emperor that seeks the same and don't go on foolhardily wars.

Rome could be saved from the worst of the Crisis of the Third Century, downsizing it as Flavius pointed out as well, while Parthia patch itself up, and focus on culture, science, and trade.

This also could saved the Kushan Empire as they won't have the Sasanians coming to town on them, which in itself would have very interesting affects on the region and on India. (Or at least have someone reunite the western and eastern halves of the Kushan.)

 

[Deleted member 114175]

Honesty, I feel Rome and Parthia could be friends, or at least stay normally friendly with each other. Anything would be better then the endless tug of war Rome (Later Eastern Romans.) and Persia seem trapped in OTL, and that pretty much doomed them both. Anything that can reach a long term truce and status quo ante and stop the destruction of the later wars.

In hindsight that would have made sense, but I don't think it's possible long-term due to geographic and strategic reasons. Before the Roman-Persian and Byzantine-Persian wars, there were the Ptolemaic-Seleucid Wars also of incredible ferocity. After the Romans, we see the same war in the same region basically repeat itself as the Fatimid-Seljuk wars and the Ottoman-Persian Wars. A Mediterranean-based empire seems to always want to try and conquer Mesopotamia and the Armenian Highlands, while a Persia-based empire seems to always want to try and conquer the Levant.

 

[Historyman 14]

In hindsight that would have made sense, but I don't think it's possible long-term due to geographic and strategic reasons. Before the Roman-Persian and Byzantine-Persian wars, there were the Ptolemaic-Seleucid Wars also of incredible ferocity. After the Romans, we see the same war in the same region basically repeat itself as the Fatimid-Seljuk wars and the Ottoman-Persian Wars. A Mediterranean-based empire seems to always want to try and conquer Mesopotamia and the Armenian Highlands, while a Persia-based empire seems to always want to try and conquer the Levant.

I mean, that's true, your not wrong there always been wars over similar reasons, but I still think there could be a long term peace of a kind between a Rome and Parthia that has better things to do then waste lives in the Middle East and Armenia, and work on a compromise, and focus on elsewhere and themselves rather then each other.

Hong long this holds, who knows, but both Rome and Parthia feel the positive effects in due time.

 

[alcibiades]

I mean, that's true, your not wrong there always been wars over similar reasons, but I still think there could be a long term peace of a kind between a Rome and Parthia that has better things to do then waste lives in the Middle East and Armenia, and work on a compromise, and focus on elsewhere and themselves rather then each other.

Hong long this holds, who knows, but both Rome and Parthia feel the positive effects in due time.

I suppose the best route might be a marriage alliance. As we discussed in your other thread it was under consideration by Caracalla and Artabanus. So maybe Alexander Severus marries the Parthian Kings daughter. Another possibility is the Augustus route and have the Parthian King marry a Roman woman. During the short reign of King Phraates V we actually did have a half Roman on the throne.

 

[Flavius Iulius Nepos]

In hindsight that would have made sense, but I don't think it's possible long-term due to geographic and strategic reasons. Before the Roman-Persian and Byzantine-Persian wars, there were the Ptolemaic-Seleucid Wars also of incredible ferocity. After the Romans, we see the same war in the same region basically repeat itself as the Fatimid-Seljuk wars and the Ottoman-Persian Wars. A Mediterranean-based empire seems to always want to try and conquer Mesopotamia and the Armenian Highlands, while a Persia-based empire seems to always want to try and conquer the Levant.

I don't agree with the notion of the inevitability of the war. The Arsacids never really tried to restore the Achaemenid empire, while the roman never seriously considered to annex Mesopotamia (aside during Trajan's campaign). The real contention was about the Armenian kingdom and his strategic position, but the romans and the parthians seemed to have found an agreement in the form of an Arsacids prince reigning as vassal of Rome. A solution that in my opinion would guarantee that both empires have their interests and their prestige preserved.

I suppose the best route might be a marriage alliance. As we discussed in your other thread it was under consideration by Caracalla and Artabanus. So maybe Alexander Severus marries the Parthian Kings daughter. Another possibility is the Augustus route and have the Parthian King marry a Roman woman. During the short reign of King Phraates V we actually did have a half Roman on the throne.

A marriage would have some positive effects in the short term, but romans dynasties weren't pretty stable. The marriage would lose quickly its importance once you get a brand new emperor from a new dynasty. You can renovate this alliance with every new emperor but i think that the parthians would be encouraged to meddle in the roman civil wars, in favor of their man, more frequently than it happened,something that could destabilize the empire, as the romans meddling in the parthian civil wars showed.