Emperor Carus lives longer

Emperor Carus died in the year 283 during a campaign against the Sassanids.
What if he had lived on? Would he have been able to defeat the Sassanidian Empire and push the Roman border eastwards?
 
Emperor Carus died in the year 283 during a campaign against the Sassanids.
What if he had lived on? Would he have been able to defeat the Sassanidian Empire and push the Roman border eastwards?
This discussion has been held a lot of times.It wouldn't have been possible to push the Roman border eastwards.They could in the second century,but probably with a whole lot of troubles.Trying to conquer lands during the crisis of the third century is even more difficult.
 
Would a border in the Zagros Moutains be the maximum or would it be possible to push even further East?
The point is the the Roman Empire in 283 was a saturated state.It's economy has gone to hell and generals are fighting over the throne.There are also barbarian tribes all over the place trying to attack the empire.It would not be wise to try and expand during this period.Sooner or later,there will probably be a rebellion/barbarian invasion in another part of the empire and the forces sent to take Mesopotamia would have to be withdrawn to fight the usurpers/barbarians and the Persians retake their territory.The most plausible period for Roman annexation of Mesopotamia would have been under a more successful Trajan or a more bellicose and equally successful Hadrian.
 
What would make Hadrian want to keep Mesopotamia and even expand further into Parthia?
If the place was more pacified for starters, less rebellions in other parts of the empire and Zagros gets taken.Further expansion into Parthia on the other hand is just impossible.On the other hand,to make Mesopotamia more secure,it may be necessary to fragment the whole Parthian empire and set up a number of client states.Even if he did conquer the entirety of the Parthian Empire,it would have been extremely difficult to communicate with Rome from Parthia.He would have to pretty much set up some sort of viceroy in the east with enormous powers--who would have the means to overthrow him.
 
Last edited:
Would an early move of the capital from Rome to "Constantinople" or even Antioch in Hadrian's time strengthen the Roman cause i the East?

An early division of the Roman Empire into a Western and an Eastern part?

Or divide the empire into a number of prefectures with the Parthian provinces as a prefecture of their own?
 
Would an early move of the capital from Rome to "Constantinople" or even Antioch in Hadrian's time strengthen the Roman cause i the East?

Every emperor, who tries to conquer and hold Mesopotamia, Armenia and perhaps Media, would spend the most time of his life in the East. Either in Antiochia or Nicomedia. If you look from Nikomedia for the best place to establish a fortified new capital, you find Byzantion.

An early division of the Roman Empire into a Western and an Eastern part?

Or divide the empire into a number of prefectures with the Parthian provinces as a prefecture of their own?

As discussed in the other threads about this topic, you need multiple strong leaders to manage such a huge empire. But this leads to usurpation in the roman world. Regardless if these leaders are caesars or stronger legates/prefects. The late empire had not much less usurpations than the principate. Just new types of usurpations evolved.

Well, if Odaenathus survives, he might conquer the East. There are vague hints, that he conquered Ctesiphon twice. But how long would he stay loyal to Rome? The option to become the new King of Kings yourself is just too tempting for every roman commander in this new big East.

I agree, that in the 3rd century this is even more a mission impossible than in the 1st or 2nd century. Diocletian stopped after the conquest of northern Mesopotamia by very good reasons.
 
Last edited:
What would the best POD be for Roman domination of Partia/Sassanid Empire? Do we even have to go back to the time of Crassus and Julius Caesar?
 
What would the best POD be for Roman domination of Partia/Sassanid Empire? Do we even have to go back to the time of Crassus and Julius Caesar?
Define what you mean by domination?Take Mesopotamia only?Take Mesopotamia and then disintegrate the Parthian Empire by turning it into a series of client states?Or outright conquest of the entire empire?Please note that the latter option is plainly infeasible.
 
What would the best POD be for Roman domination of Partia/Sassanid Empire? Do we even have to go back to the time of Crassus and Julius Caesar?

Every POD until Trajan is ok. But you need a lot of time, better a century than decades, in order to have a minimal chance to stabilize this area before the trouble at Rhine and Danube starts. We discussed it already here:

https://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?t=350357

The problem is not to smash the parthian empire and replace it with new provinces and a bunch of client states. The problem is to govern this new east without usurpations. Whatever you do, you will change the society, culture and politics of the roman empire forever. I am convinced, that this was the main reason for Hadrian to stop it.
 
To give Carus credit, he was an able general who had won a victory over the barbarians on the Danube frontier en route to Persia and captured Ctesiphon before he died. His Persian opponent, Bahram II, faced major problems of his own which had limited his ability to fight back. Carus could probably have continued his campaign and won more victories for as long as his army were prepared to follow. Which I'd guess would be as long as there were rich cities to loot.
 

Hecatee

Donor
If you want a POD to have Hadrian keep more of the East (and provide better bases for later more complete conquest of the Sassanid) you'd have to kill the Jewish rebellion : the troubles it caused was a major factor in Hadrian's decision to retreat from Mesopotamia.

Actually this would also mean a bigger roman emphasis on cavalry from the 2nd century onward, which may have later consequences on both civil wars (more mobile forces, faster contact between armies, less destructions ?) or against the barbarians (faster reaction against raids, ...)...
 
Top