How succesful can the Romans be against the Persian/Parthians?

yourworstnightmare

Banned
Donor
Conquering the place: feasible

Keeping it: Not a chance, Rome was already pushed to limit on how much territory they could administer and defend.
 
No the why cannot be overcome with "glory of conquest", Glory of conquest is worth jack shit in terms of actual reasons to take things. That is just about the most pop-history bull I've seen on this site and its just plain wrong. Conquerors, (atleast sane ones) almost always conquered because there is some kind of monetary or strategic reason to do so, this is why very powerful strong empires rarely go on a conquering binge, warfare in general and especially conquest is something thats undertaken with purpose and a plan for what it gives their empire.

The underrating of culture on this site is soemthing which I object to. Romans have conquered relatively valueless areas-Britannia, for example. It was held for a very long time, despite requiring disproportionate numbers of Legions to do so, and taken mostly for reasons of prestige.

Of course, Britannia's smaller and rather less developed than Parthia, and an awful lot less difficult to conquer.
 
The underrating of culture on this site is soemthing which I object to. Romans have conquered relatively valueless areas-Britannia, for example. It was held for a very long time, despite requiring disproportionate numbers of Legions to do so, and taken mostly for reasons of prestige.

Of course, Britannia's smaller and rather less developed than Parthia, and an awful lot less difficult to conquer.

Britannia has tin. That's not nothing.
 
A few bridgeheads from the seaside is not practical given how far those are frmo anywhere Rome holds securely for any definition thereof.

Not this means trying to take more is. Rome did do well vs. Persia - the only sense it wasn't pretty successful was in the sense of total conquest.


Points taken. Nevetheless, I now really want to know what the coasts of the Persian Gulf looked like. Any knowledgeable comments appreciated!

The Romans, unlike the Greeks are not very Maritime-inclined, so, I doubt it.

So do you claim that water-hole in the middle of their Empire is for summer vacation, or did they have it just to make them look bigger on a map? ;)
 
'To be more accurate', the region you're describing should not be referred to as "Persia" at all, even if it was part of Eranshahr.

At the time it certainly was. Assuristan was a important part of the Sassanid and Parthian state. The Romans managed to sack the capital more then once but, were never quite able to extend their reach east of this.
 
Weren't the Romans ultimately losing "money" in their holding of Britannia?

Well if you read David Mattingly's book he essentially makes the claim that the Romans ran Britannia much like Europeans ran their African colonies as an exploitation colony for it's gold, tin and agricultural wealth. The province itself was rather rebellious compared to most other provinces in the Empire. Yet I've never actually read that they were losing money on occupying Britain, if they were, they probably wouldn't have bothered staying there for 400 years (see the retreat from Dacia, Mesopotamia et al). Nor would they have spent a whacking great amount on money on a big wall designed to delineate the edge of the Roman Empire, which does kinda say 'we're here to stay!'
 
Well if you read David Mattingly's book he essentially makes the claim that the Romans ran Britannia much like Europeans ran their African colonies as an exploitation colony for it's gold, tin and agricultural wealth. The province itself was rather rebellious compared to most other provinces in the Empire. Yet I've never actually read that they were losing money on occupying Britain, if they were, they probably wouldn't have bothered staying there for 400 years (see the retreat from Dacia, Mesopotamia et al). Nor would they have spent a whacking great amount on money on a big wall designed to delineate the edge of the Roman Empire, which does kinda say 'we're here to stay!'

IIRC, they originally at least, conquered Briton to protect Gaul from raids from the island. But I could be wrong.
 

Seraphiel

Banned
IIRC, they originally at least, conquered Briton to protect Gaul from raids from the island. But I could be wrong.

That was probaly one the many reasons for the conquest of Britannia, though many other factors also contributed such as the Britianian tin mines. Caeser probally also invaded Britain due to revenge for the Britons aiding the Gauls during his conquest of Gaul.
 
Top