Glory of Rome, Ghost of Alexander

What if some Roman EMperor (your choice who), or even Caesar or Antony decided to conquer the entirety of the old Alexandrine empire (Alexander the Great's Empire that was divided)? What would that mean for Rome, firstly; and how would it be accomplished?

Does anyone know why such an attempt was never made/failed?

PS: My knowledge on Roman history is dodgy at best. I know the five good emperors, and the Julio-CLaudian emperors, Caesar, Antony and Cleopatra, further than that, zip.

Any comments welcome.
 
At its height, the Roman Empire actually had about half Alexander's empire. If the Romans had ever been able (some time in the second or early third century) to completely defeat and take over the Parthian Empire, then they would have effectively conquered the whole thing.

Of course, they would never be able to govern all this. I'll put it this way — Hadrian not only didn't try to conquer the Parthians, he gave away several Mesopotamian provinces that his predecessor had conquered. He seems to have had a pretty good sense of how much territory Rome could administrate.
 
The distance from the Mediterranean makes conquering Mesopotamia, the further Caucasus and Iran rather difficult for the Empire, and makes holding it nigh-impossible. I think at a stretch Mesopotamia could be held for a while, but beyond into the Zagros is just too difficult.
 
So, provided the emperor is sane (which admittedly some apparently weren't) no conquest of the Sassanid empire?

Wasn't there also some refusal by the troops sent by Augustus to conquer Arabia when they found that it was nothing but desert? I think i read that somewhere

Or maybe Cleopatra could convince Antony (for the sake of their children, Helios and Selene) to conquer further east, and let those lands be ruled by Egypt rather than Rome, only to let them be seized by Augustus?
 
Or maybe Cleopatra could convince Antony (for the sake of their children, Helios and Selene) to conquer further east, and let those lands be ruled by Egypt rather than Rome, only to let them be seized by Augustus?

If the full might of Rome would be challenged to do it, to say the least, how is Egypt doing it?
 
What if some Roman EMperor (your choice who), or even Caesar or Antony decided to conquer the entirety of the old Alexandrine empire (Alexander the Great's Empire that was divided)? What would that mean for Rome, firstly; and how would it be accomplished?

Does anyone know why such an attempt was never made/failed?

PS: My knowledge on Roman history is dodgy at best. I know the five good emperors, and the Julio-CLaudian emperors, Caesar, Antony and Cleopatra, further than that, zip.

Any comments welcome.

I think Julius Caesar, Trajan, and perhaps Julian had the worst cases of Alexander-itis. Caesar of course was assassinated before he had any chance to put his plans in action. Julian found the Sassanids a much tougher challenge than the Germans. And Trajan got as far as anyone, finally brought down by old age.

It's not to say that a young, capable emperor couldn't have conquered a fair slice of the Persian Empire, especially under the Parthians, given the right circumstances. But logistics would be a bear, and governing it would be tough. And unlike Alexander, such an emperor would have a vast empire already at his back, demanding his return and attention to its governing needs.

Just to get from Rome to Nisibis, for example, using the fast means (mostly by sea), was 26 days in high summer. Now imagine going all the way from Rome to Persepolis - or, heaven help us, Bactria. And that's assuming Roman-quality roads.
 
What if some Roman EMperor (your choice who), or even Caesar or Antony decided to conquer the entirety of the old Alexandrine empire (Alexander the Great's Empire that was divided)? What would that mean for Rome, firstly; and how would it be accomplished?

Does anyone know why such an attempt was never made/failed?

PS: My knowledge on Roman history is dodgy at best. I know the five good emperors, and the Julio-CLaudian emperors, Caesar, Antony and Cleopatra, further than that, zip.

Any comments welcome.

Didn't Julian The Apostate attempt this? Also, a Crassus doing better could encourage any future emperor after the republic falls to attempt such a feat. He wouldn't have come close to achieving it, but if he is able to inflict a defeat or two on the Parthians, then it might seem to the emperors that Parthia was weak.

Also, if you can get some feuding within the Parthian Empire at around the same time * insert emperor here* invades, it will make it a lot easier.
 
Looking at this logistically and territorially the best idea seems to be that the Byzantine empire somehow conquers Persia. The empire wouldn't be completely huge and ungovernable ( combining the Eastern Roman empire with the Sassanid empire seems to be the entirely of Alexander the Great's conquests, perhaps excluding parts of India) and would eliminate Rome's biggest rival.
So here's my idea, however I'm not sure if this go's into ASB territory.What if the Byzantine Empire doesn't bleed itself dry on their wars with the Sassanids so when both sides are invaded by the Arabs the Byzantines can redirect them to Persia. I assume after this conquest Persia, and by extension Alexander the Great's eastern empire, would be fairly weakened for the foreseeable future, so another Emperor (or the same Emperor who forced the arabs to redirect to Persia) could conquer a weakened Persia, sort of like how Alexander the Great did the same thing.
 
Top