Crassus Victorious Over Parthians

The Wikipedia entry on Carrhae describes how Crassus formed up the Roman army in such away that reduced its mobility instead of a different formation that wouldn't sacrifice mobility.

When fighting horse marchers with infantry, reducing mobility is a really bad idea.
 
The Wikipedia entry on Carrhae describes how Crassus formed up the Roman army in such away that reduced its mobility instead of a different formation that wouldn't sacrifice mobility.

When fighting horse marchers with infantry, reducing mobility is a really bad idea.

He did that because he was afraid that if he allowed his troops to get strung out that they would become pray for the Parthian lancers held in reserve.
 
Other Roman armies that invaded the Parthian Empire used to go via Armenia because it was less suitable for cavalry. There is no good reason why Crassus could not have done the same. He then goes on to sack the Parthian capital and/or be bought off. Either way he is going to even more stinking rich. What he still won't have proved is that he was a "real general" like Caesar or Pompey because he won't have won a field action against a proper foe; his principle reason for invading the Parthian Empire was military glory. Methink therefore he would go on to invade Egypt and hope they put up a fight.
 
Other Roman armies that invaded the Parthian Empire used to go via Armenia because it was less suitable for cavalry. There is no good reason why Crassus could not have done the same. He then goes on to sack the Parthian capital and/or be bought off. Either way he is going to even more stinking rich. What he still won't have proved is that he was a "real general" like Caesar or Pompey because he won't have won a field action against a proper foe; his principle reason for invading the Parthian Empire was military glory. Methink therefore he would go on to invade Egypt and hope they put up a fight.

Nabateans are a better target I think.
 
Why would Crassus's conquest of Mesopotamia be more provocative of a war than, say, Caesar's conquest of Gaul?

If Crassus (or his son) conquers Mesopotamia, that means they're still alive and the First Triumvirate will last a bit longer than OTL. IIRC it was the death of Crassus that destabilized things and paved the way for the civil war.

Because the conquest of Mesopotamia could bring Crassus to control the wealthiest and prestigious cities of Babylon, Ctesiphon, Seleucia, the trade routes to the East, he could give the possibility to create here new clienteles making him more rich and powerful and also the possibility to finally have his first triumph at Rome demostrating to be a valiant general (remember the Senate gave only an Ovatio for ending Sparthacus's revolt, so for Crassus was surely a sweet revenge). The civilized Mesopotamia is many times more valuable to a barbaric Gallia in the Senate's eyes.

A problem for Crassus is the territories he now controlled (Syria, Iudea, Mesopotamia) were surrounded by Pompey's client states ( Egypt, Israel, minor Anatolians ); also in Syria surely Pompey continued to have support.
So Crassus could try to impose his influence in these regions or he waited until 48 bc ?

In effect if Crassus survived at start of 48 bc his power as Proconsul in the area ended as for Caesar in Gallia... so the debats in Rome surely become more complicated than in history... and the only possible options were or a new triumvirate accord or the civil war: but for Pompey the situation were disastrous...

Maybe, with the East provinces in hand to Crassus instead to flee in Greece Pompey could try to resist in Spain?
 
Crassus being even more ludicrously rich than OTL would threaten the balance of power, but that doesn't mean a civil war is the only possible outcome.

Pompey and Crassus could come up with some definitive settlement for their Eastern domains to avoid problems and potentially avoid looking weak in front of Caesar, whose army is a lot closer to Rome than theirs would be.

Also, WI Crassus-the-Triumvir is killed somehow during the campaign and his more competent son takes over. He'd have daddy's colossal fortune, but he'll be younger and inexperienced.

Replacing Crassus the Elder with Crassus the Younger might preserve the First Triumvirate, even if the (permanent) conquest of Mesopotamia is destabilizing.
 
Replacing Crassus the Elder with Crassus the Younger might preserve the First Triumvirate, even if the (permanent) conquest of Mesopotamia is destabilizing.
On the other hand Pompey might decide that he can take down the pup then seize his late father's conquests and so be richer than Caesar. He could then make a bid for supreme power ahead of his rival, sorry political ally.
 
Top