Delenda est Roma: WI Rome (or part thereof) conquered by Sassanid Persia?

[Tom Colton]

The period would be the Military Anarchy; perhaps Shapur decisively defeats the Romans at Anatolia in 260 instead of the other way around, and besieges (EDIT: Byzantium/Augusta Antonina/the Bosporus, brainfart) whilst also breaking into Syria and endnagering the grain supply, forcing Rome to essentially give up its Eastern half?

Could the West re-consolidate and reform so that it would last longer, or would such defeats be a critical disaster for the Roman Empire? If so, what are the consequences of Rome falling two centuries early?

 

[Practical Lobster]

There is no Constantinople in 260. That's the good news. The bad news is well... everything else.

The Sassanians, especially early on, are protonationalist Iranians who would have to radically change their identity to accommodate to so many disparate peoples. A more philhellenic dynasty would probably do better.

Even if the Sassanians sweep the Near East and establish toeholds in Greece and Thracia, they'll run into trouble with the Danube frontiers, where there's a lot of soldiers, and the Balkans in general, which will be difficult terrain far from any established base of operations.

I don't think such a victory would spell defeat for the Romans because Roman identity at this juncture is far too entrenched. There's just nothing else for a lot of the European world to be at this juncture, and no other proper existential threat to finish them off. I'm tempted to say that these Sassanian victories would be ephemeral at best, but even if Rome retook a lot of their Empire in the long run, this is definitely the start of an excellent Rome-screw down the line, as Rome puts off internal reform in favor of massive re conquest plans and military strongmen remain the order of the day perhaps indefinitely.

 

[Agricola]

Could the West re-consolidate and reform so that it would last longer, or would such defeats be a critical disaster for the Roman Empire?

The roman empire almost desintegrated during the 3rd century crisis. The roman emperor lost the West and the East. But Aurelianus reconquered it. It seems, that the roman empire was not broken at this point of time. So even Shapur conquering Asia, Syria and Egypt, might be just a shortterm adventure, until the empire strikes back. How is Shapur more dangerous than Palmyra, which has beaten the persians more than once?

But Shapur conquering Constantinople? May I get some of this stuff you are smoking?

 

[Tom Colton]

But Shapur conquering Constantinople? May I get some of this stuff you are smoking?

My deepest apologies, my brain genuinely blanked as badly as someone calling King Arthur's realm "England".

 

[water123]

Like someone else said, sure, a lot of what would become Byzantium could become Sassanid land, but Rome really didn't have anyone that could finish it off. The only "barbarians" at that time were a few disparate Celtic tribes and some proto-Germans with no reason to move.

 

[Tom Colton]

Is it then possible, with a shorter frontier, that Rome winds up getting stronger because it can consolidate better, or are they in for a bad time one way or another?

 

[Agricola]

Is it then possible, with a shorter frontier, that Rome winds up getting stronger because it can consolidate better, or are they in for a bad time one way or another?

A shorter border in the East than the Euphrat? I cannot imagine, which border should be shorter.

 

[Ricard (i.e. Rdffigueira)]

A shorter border in the East than the Euphrat? I cannot imagine, which border should be shorter.

I'm not sure if that was Tom Colton's point, but perhaps something like the early 8th Century Byzantine frontier - the line in Anatolia from Taurus Mountains to Trebizond. Geographically speaking, its a fairly concise e defensible border due to the topograhy, even more than the Euphrates.

 

[MakiRoc]

I doubt the Sassanids would be able to take and hold Anatolia. The Levant and Egypt would probably be the most they can annex.
If Rome loses the eastern part of the empire it would be a economic disaster. On the other hand I believe the empire would rebound and become more self sufficient like the Byzantines in OTL. They might eventually even reconquer the lost territory (which is very likely).

If the smaller empire decides not to reconquer the east, some alternative developments might occur, such as:

• Naval warefare becomes more important, because the Romans don't control the whole Mediterranean. More advancements in naval technology. More coastal cities become fortified.
• With the Sassanids busy consolidating their hold on newly conquered territory, perhaps Rome turns it attention towards Northern Europe. Possibly expands in Germania.
• Less influence from the east. No Syriacs, Jews, Egyptians and less Greek speakers can make the empire seem more romanized, more culturally homogeneous. Maybe it could spur a proto-nationalist sentiment.
• Without the east Christianity might not eventually become the empire's state religion. I believe the bulk of the Christian population would be in the east, and therefore under Sassanid control.
• Manichaeism might be even more successful in the former Roman east (now under Sharpur's control) but less so in the west (do to it being a religion of the despised Sassanids)