DBWI:Parni Victory

We all know that the Seleucid Empire was the greatest empire in the history of the Near East, conquering Northern India and holding off the Romans while Hellenizing the region. However, the Seleucids were once challenged by a barbarian lord called Arsades(Aranes? I can't remember his name)Anyway, this Arsades nearly gained independence from the Seleucids. Now, I know this is practically ASB( what with Antiochus the Great, especially after his great victory at Magnesia) but what if Arsades had conquered Mesoptamia and Persia, restoring the Persian Empire!!!!!!!!:rolleyes:I know Imajin did a TL on this, but it's very implausible if I may say so;)What are your thoughts?
 
This couldn't happen under any circumstances. Only shortly afterward the Parni were absorbed into a Sarmatian steppe tribe and ceased to exist. They were a joke.
 
The key is to ratchet-up the instability in the western region of the empire during the time when the Seleucids were embroiled in conflict with Ptolemaic Egypt. Perhaps Andragoras, the Seleucid satrap in Parthia, could be successful in his struggle to gain independence for Parthia. That would be a start.

I thought they were ruled by the Seleucids?!

They were. I can only conclude that slydessertfox has some theological or political reason for denying what the surviving written record (as small as it may be) and the archeological evidence proves.

OCC: slydessertfox, posts like that only serve to derail a DBWI and DBWIs are fragile creations which need to be handled w/care.
 
The key is to ratchet-up the instability in the western region of the empire during the time when the Seleucids were embroiled in conflict with Ptolemaic Egypt. Perhaps Andragoras, the Seleucid satrap in Parthia, could be successful in his struggle to gain independence for Parthia. That would be a start.



They were. I can only conclude that slydessertfox has some theological or political reason for denying what the surviving written record (as small as it may be) and the archeological evidence proves.

OCC: slydessertfox, posts like that only serve to derail a DBWI and DBWIs are fragile creations which need to be handled w/care.

I said that Arsades guy, and its the entire east, not just Parthia itself that is supposed to split from the Seleucids in a Parni
 
They were. I can only conclude that slydessertfox has some theological or political reason for denying what the surviving written record (as small as it may be) and the archeological evidence proves.
.

Everyone forgets that small period where they were overtaken by a steppe tribe before the Seleucids reabsorbed them again quickly thereafter.


As for making it possible, I suppose a good start would be for Antiochus to lose at Magnesia decisively. If you want to get more creative, have him killed at the battle. The political power vacuum might be just enough to cause a civil war in the realm. With that, the Parni could sweep in anad possibly gain a sizeable foothold to make them there to stay.
 
Everyone forgets that small period where they were overtaken by a steppe tribe before the Seleucids reabsorbed them again quickly thereafter.


As for making it possible, I suppose a good start would be for Antiochus to lose at Magnesia decisively. If you want to get more creative, have him killed at the battle. The political power vacuum might be just enough to cause a civil war in the realm. With that, the Parni could sweep in anad possibly gain a sizeable foothold to make them there to stay.

But, it's so implausible for such a brilliant general like Antioch to lose at Magnesia. We all know it was inevitable that Antioch would conquer Greece and later Egypt, reuniting the Macedonian Empire!
 
Last edited:
But, it's so implausible for such a brilliant general like Antioch to lose at Magnesia. We all know it was inevitable that Antioch would conquer Greece and later Egypt, reuniting the Macedonian Empire!

I don't recall Antiochus being that great of a general. Good? Why yes he was, he did a fine job at places like Sidon and Sogdia. However, he did have his own fair shares of losses, with the Anatolian campaign being the best example I can think of for that. Heck, the Battle of Tarsus is the best example of his own shortcomings.

As for the Parni, I know about jack about them, but I cannot see them seizing Persia at all. The track record for nomadic peoples seizing developed lands for any serious length of time is very poor. They just don't have the manpower do do something like that.
 
I don't recall Antiochus being that great of a general. Good? Why yes he was, he did a fine job at places like Sidon and Sogdia. However, he did have his own fair shares of losses, with the Anatolian campaign being the best example I can think of for that. Heck, the Battle of Tarsus is the best example of his own shortcomings.

As for the Parni, I know about jack about them, but I cannot see them seizing Persia at all. The track record for nomadic peoples seizing developed lands for any serious length of time is very poor. They just don't have the manpower do do something like that.

Genghis Khan
 
Genghis Khan

OOC: Welp, that murdered a ton of butterflies.

IC: Yeah, and guess what happened? His empire fractured upon his death. You missed the key point of "extended period of time". Genghis Khan never consolidated his gains, primarily because of how few nomads are compared to sedentary peoples and how unaccustomed they are to managing lands and creating an efficient form of government that can maintain them. His "empire" was more a network of loosely bound satraps than a polity like the Seleucid Empire or Roman Republic.
 
I suppose if the process of Hellenization was interrupted, then it wouldn't matter if the Parni could hold on or not. What would be left would still be a distinctly non-Hellenic state, and a Persian state could indeed arise from the ashes. Whether the Parni ever stand a ghost of a chance is an entirely different matter.

As an interesting aside, the Seleucids, if weakened sufficiently by the event Pericles postulates, might very well fall before the Roman Republic, bringing Roman rule to the Levant.
 
Top