Marcus Licinius Crassus's Parthian Campaign

[Alex Zetsu]

It's clear Marcus Licinius Crassus's campaign as it was made in OTL was doomed to fail. He had his men chase after a Parthian army on forced march so they were tired when they faced them at Carrhae. On the other hand, I think he could have had a successful campaign. The Romans in the Imperial era did much better and Imperial Cavalry tended to resemble the Celtic shock cavalry that Crassus had rather than the Parthian ones, so it wasn't as if the Romans needed to change their equipment to win. The main Parthian army would be distracted from Crassus, so I think a better gameplan would have saved his legions and won him glory. But how far was he intending to go? Would he have tried expand the Roman province of Syria and call it a day?

In terms of land area, what he took from the Parthians in his first year's of campaigning (undone by his later defeat) is similar to what Pompey gained for the Roman Republic in his eastern campaigns (Judea was made a client kingdom not annexed, so that doesn't count). Or did he feel he had to go greater than that and install a client king for Rome? I think a limited victory is possible, but I don't know if he would be satisfied with it and I'm not sure he could go farther. On the other hand, adding just as much land area as Pompey's eastern campaigns he could use to glorify himself and leave future conquests for his son when his son is old enough to be consul and Crassus can spend the rest of his time on his businesses. On the other hand, almost every source except Caesar says Crassus was vain, so even if he had a successful 3 year campaign he might end up pushing his luck too far instead of getting a limited victory.

If Crassus got a limited victory, some land, and some payment from the Parthians and Julia (Pompey's wife) survived and had a healthy girl, would Ceasar not need to march on Rome? He wanted to run for consul in 49 BC and then get a special law passed that would allow him to run in 45 BC. This would be irregular, normally you have to be 10 years of not being consul before being consul, but Pompey got to be consul in 52 BC early because the Senate passed a special law, so it's clear they can make exceptions. When Caesar was consul in OTL, Crassus and Pompey and their clients backed Caesar, and every optimate except Cato felt they couldn't go against the flow. With Julia and Crassus alive, Pompey and Crassus should be able to keep his support in the Senate up. OTL Pompey didn't join the optimates until he got a new father-in-law who he spent a lot of time with. Plus Pompey was still a hero for fixing the grain shortage caused by pirates (long story).

 

[Fabius Maximus]

It's clear Marcus Licinius Crassus's campaign as it was made in OTL was doomed to fail. He had his men chase after a Parthian army on forced march so they were tired when they faced them at Carrhae. On the other hand, I think he could have had a successful campaign. The Romans in the Imperial era did much better and Imperial Cavalry tended to resemble the Celtic shock cavalry that Crassus had rather than the Parthian ones, so it wasn't as if the Romans needed to change their equipment to win.

Most subsequent Roman armies made sure to bring a lot of light infantry, and used them in close conjunction with their legionaries. It was the same sort of synergy you found in later pike and shot tactics -- the light infantry would use their missiles to attack the enemy cavalry, and take shelter behind the legionaries if said cavalry tried to charge them. These tactics were usually successful, at least in pitched battles, so in principle, Crassus absolutely could have had a successful campaign, albeit it's not clear how much information the Romans had about Parthian tactics before their experience at Carrhae.

The main Parthian army would be distracted from Crassus, so I think a better gameplan would have saved his legions and won him glory. But how far was he intending to go? Would he have tried expand the Roman province of Syria and call it a day?

Well, Plutarch seems to suggest that Crassus was a megalomaniac who wanted to repeat Alexander's conquest of the east. Then again, pretty much any big defeat in the ancient world got chalked up to hubris on the part of the losing general, so take that with a pinch of salt. A realistic war goal would have been expanding Roman territory into northern Mesopotamia plus an indemnity which could be spun back home as a Parthian submission and payment of tribute. A more ambitious but not entirely unachievable goal would have been the conquest of Mesopotamia as a Roman province, although anything beyond this would probably stretch Roman supply lines beyond what they could bear.

If Crassus got a limited victory, some land, and some payment from the Parthians and Julia (Pompey's wife) survived and had a healthy girl, would Ceasar not need to march on Rome?

The ancient Roman view was that Crassus' death made the Civil War inevitable. With all three around, any one Triumvir who tried to take over would be checked by the other two, whose combined power would be too much to beat; once Crassus was taken out of the picture, this dynamic no longer applied, leaving Caesar and Pompey to square off alone.

 

[bguy]

In terms of land area, what he took from the Parthians in his first year's of campaigning (undone by his later defeat) is similar to what Pompey gained for the Roman Republic in his eastern campaigns (Judea was made a client kingdom not annexed, so that doesn't count). Or did he feel he had to go greater than that and install a client king for Rome? I think a limited victory is possible, but I don't know if he would be satisfied with it and I'm not sure he could go farther. On the other hand, adding just as much land area as Pompey's eastern campaigns he could use to glorify himself and leave future conquests for his son when his son is old enough to be consul and Crassus can spend the rest of his time on his businesses. On the other hand, almost every source except Caesar says Crassus was vain, so even if he had a successful 3 year campaign he might end up pushing his luck too far instead of getting a limited victory.

I think Crassus' original plan was probably to install Mithridates IV (the brother of the Parthian King of King Orodes) as the Roman client king of Parthia. The problem is that Mithridates jumped the gun and invaded Parthia without Roman support in 55 BC and was then defeated and killed before Crassus could come to his aid. Thus if Crassus had succeeded, I imagine he would have tried to find some other Parthian noble to prop up as a client king rather than try to directly annex Parthia.

If Crassus got a limited victory, some land, and some payment from the Parthians and Julia (Pompey's wife) survived and had a healthy girl, would Ceasar not need to march on Rome? He wanted to run for consul in 49 BC and then get a special law passed that would allow him to run in 45 BC. This would be irregular, normally you have to be 10 years of not being consul before being consul, but Pompey got to be consul in 52 BC early because the Senate passed a special law, so it's clear they can make exceptions. When Caesar was consul in OTL, Crassus and Pompey and their clients backed Caesar, and every optimate except Cato felt they couldn't go against the flow. With Julia and Crassus alive, Pompey and Crassus should be able to keep his support in the Senate up. OTL Pompey didn't join the optimates until he got a new father-in-law who he spent a lot of time with. Plus Pompey was still a hero for fixing the grain shortage caused by pirates (long story).

Julia surviving would probably be enough by itself to avoid the civil war.

The interesting question is what does a Caesar who is elected consul in 49 BC do next if Crassus has already defeated the Parthians (and thus cut off his most promising option for future military glory). I imagine he probably seeks a campaign against the Dacians (who would seem to be the most promising option for future glory if the Parthians have been defeated). If Caesar is successful in Dacia that could see Rome secure Illyria, Pannonia, Moesia, Thrace, and Dacia decades earlier than IOTL. (Of course its also possible that whatever client king Crassus installed in Parthia will be overthrown or turn on Rome by 49 BC, so Caesar might still have a chance for his own Parthian Campaign.)

 

[Fabius Maximus]

The interesting question is what does a Caesar who is elected consul in 49 BC do next if Crassus has already defeated the Parthians (and thus cut off his most promising option for future military glory). I imagine he probably seeks a campaign against the Dacians (who would seem to be the most promising option for future glory if the Parthians have been defeated). If Caesar is successful in Dacia that could see Rome secure Illyria, Pannonia, Moesia, Thrace, and Dacia decades earlier than IOTL. (Of course its also possible that whatever client king Crassus installed in Parthia will be overthrown or turn on Rome by 49 BC, so Caesar might still have a chance for his own Parthian Campaign.)

Yeah, the Dacians would be the most likely option. If for whatever reason they're unavailable, the obvious choices would be another invasion of Britain, or even Germany.

 

[Alex Zetsu]

I think Crassus' original plan was probably to install Mithridates IV (the brother of the Parthian King of King Orodes) as the Roman client king of Parthia. The problem is that Mithridates jumped the gun and invaded Parthia without Roman support in 55 BC and was then defeated and killed before Crassus could come to his aid. Thus if Crassus had succeeded, I imagine he would have tried to find some other Parthian noble to prop up as a client king rather than try to directly annex Parthia.

Ah that makes sense, Mithridates was friendly towards Rome (or at least Crassus). This would be much more doable than trying to annex Parthia. This would also be a big boon to Rome since the Parthians were always more of a thorn than the Seleucids were, so that's a pretty big accomplishment.

Julia surviving would probably be enough by itself to avoid the civil war.

Probably. their marriage was pretty good according to both pro-Optimate and pro-Augustus writers.

One reason why traditionally people though the triumvirate was needed was that they acted as a counterweight to each other, so if A got too powerful, B and C would keep him in line. I think this falls apart when you insert names. So if Caesar becomes too powerful then Crassus and Pompey keep him in check? The two of them couldn't stand each other before Caesar convinced them to work together and even after that they Crassus was still sore about Pompey stealing the credit for putting down the slave revolt crisis. Rather than 3 powerful and power hungry men who each had a slice of Rome looking for more, I think the triumvirate was a mutually beneficial "I scratch your back and you'll scratch mine." Caesar as consul was able to get the tax reforms Crassus wanted and get land for Pompey's veterans, and in return they helped Caesar get his legislation passed and help him secure a good governorship (the prestigious ones were Macedonia, Syria, and Africa, but Gual was not nothing).

Also Crassus seemed genuinely fond of Caesar even before he was consul and Caesar was Pompey's father in law. So of the 3 possible bilateral relationships, 2 seemed good on a personal level. I'm not doubting all 3 men were power hungry, but I think it's more complciated than "3 powerful guys who keep each other in check"

TTL is close to what Caesar imagined when he set off for Brittania. He'd come back to find Crassus getting his conquests (Caesar certainly didn't expect Crassus to lose since the stereotype was Black Sea civilizations were easy to beat) and his family all alive. Instead personal tragedy struck with Julia dying and he partner Triumveror Crassus dead.

I imagine he probably seeks a campaign against the Dacians (who would seem to be the most promising option for future glory if the Parthians have been defeated).

Ceasar did plan for a Dacian followed by Parthian campaign in OTL. The thing was, this was all planned after defeating Cato in Africa. In OTL, no mention of Dacia by Caesar was made until after Crassus's death. I can find him talking about the tribes and terrain between the Rhine and Wesser. It's possible this was some information he passively gathered from Gauls who traveled as traders since he was the govneor after all or alternatively he might have been seeking that info himself. One possibility is to interpret this as Caesar not having interest in Dacia until after Crassus died. Another possibility is that he was interested all along, but didn't start intel gathering until just before the civil war distracted him.

 

[Fabius Maximus]

Ceasar did plan for a Dacian followed by Parthian campaign in OTL. The thing was, this was all planned after defeating Cato in Africa. In OTL, no mention of Dacia by Caesar was made until after Crassus's death. I can find him talking about the tribes and terrain between the Rhine and Wesser. It's possible this was some information he passively gathered from Gauls who traveled as traders since he was the govneor after all or alternatively he might have been seeking that info himself. One possibility is to interpret this as Caesar not having interest in Dacia until after Crassus died. Another possibility is that he was interested all along, but didn't start intel gathering until just before the civil war distracted him.

Adrian Goldsworthy, in his biography of Caesar, argues that the man was intending to fight against the Dacians when he first got his provinces up north, and only switched to conquering Gaul when he unexpectedly got Transalpine Gaul as well + the Helvetii invasion forced him to move his attention that way.

 

[bguy]

One reason why traditionally people though the triumvirate was needed was that they acted as a counterweight to each other, so if A got too powerful, B and C would keep him in line. I think this falls apart when you insert names. So if Caesar becomes too powerful then Crassus and Pompey keep him in check? The two of them couldn't stand each other before Caesar convinced them to work together and even after that they Crassus was still sore about Pompey stealing the credit for putting down the slave revolt crisis. Rather than 3 powerful and power hungry men who each had a slice of Rome looking for more, I think the triumvirate was a mutually beneficial "I scratch your back and you'll scratch mine." Caesar as consul was able to get the tax reforms Crassus wanted and get land for Pompey's veterans, and in return they helped Caesar get his legislation passed and help him secure a good governorship (the prestigious ones were Macedonia, Syria, and Africa, but Gual was not nothing).

Agreed. It's also worth remembering that Crassus was not all that committed to the Triumvirate. Indeed, he arguably left it after Caesar's consulship, as demonstrated by his reported financing of Publius Clodius' war against Pompey, and didn't really realign with Caesar and Pompey again until the Luca Conference. (Which makes sense given that prior to Luca, Crassus was probably the member of the Triumvirate that was getting the least out of their alliance. One of Caesar's most important tasks at Luca was to get Crassus back onboard by making sure he actually had something to gain from their alliance.)

Thus, it's far from certain that a victorious Crassus will even maintain his alliance with Caesar and Pompey. If he thinks he can get a better deal from the Optimates (or on his own), I don't think he would have any problem cutting Caesar and Pompey loose.

Also Crassus seemed genuinely fond of Caesar even before he was consul and Caesar was Pompey's father in law. So of the 3 possible bilateral relationships, 2 seemed good on a personal level. I'm not doubting all 3 men were power hungry, but I think it's more complciated than "3 powerful guys who keep each other in check"

One other interesting question regarding a victorious Crassus, is what happens to Publius Clodius Pulcher. IOTL Clodius' death seems to have been something of a random event, so it could very easily get butterflied. If Clodius survives, he is a very powerful, very disruptive force in Roman politics, and since he seems to have been on good terms with Crassus, he would make a powerful ally for Crassus if he does decide to break with Caesar and Pompey.

There's also Gaius Scribonius Curio. Given Crassus' history of acting as something of a patron to ambitious young populists (Caesar, Clodius, Catalina), I could certainly see Crassus taking Curio under his wing as well. An alliance of Crassus' money with Clodius and Curio's popular appeal would be formidable.

So what might a Crassus-Clodius-Curio alliance want? Well IOTL Crassus really wanted to annex Egypt and Curio likewise expressed an interest in annexing Numidia. (If Egypt falls into civil war as it did IOTL, that could certainly give Crassus a plausible pretext for Roman intervention in Egypt.) And given Pompey's personal connections with Egypt and the fact that King Juba of Numidia is one of his clients, any move by Crassus against Egypt or Numidia would almost certainly cause a fatal breach between Crassus and Pompey.

 

[Alex Zetsu]

Agreed. It's also worth remembering that Crassus was not all that committed to the Triumvirate. Indeed, he arguably left it after Caesar's consulship, as demonstrated by his reported financing of Publius Clodius' war against Pompey, and didn't really realign with Caesar and Pompey again until the Luca Conference. (Which makes sense given that prior to Luca, Crassus was probably the member of the Triumvirate that was getting the least out of their alliance. One of Caesar's most important tasks at Luca was to get Crassus back onboard by making sure he actually had something to gain from their alliance.)
Pompey.

I think you're going a bit too far. If the triumvirate was already dead, why did Caesar let Crassus's son Publius serve in his army as a legate? He also supplied Crassus 3/4 of the cavalry for his Parthian campaign and all the battle-hardened cavalry Crassus had (these were Gauls who served under Publius Crassus). Also Crassus as governor of Syria had a special law that allowed him to declare wars and this was passed in the Senate with the help of... Pompey and Caesar. Pompey disliked Crassus and Crassus loathed him, but Caesar was able to convince the two of them that the 3 of them could get stuff done together.

So no, I don't think Crassus would cut off Pompey and Caesar unless he felt he was insulted or something.

One other interesting question regarding a victorious Crassus, is what happens to Publius Clodius Pulcher.

I still imagine him dying. I mean he might not have, but let's keep things simple for our discussion.

There's also Gaius Scribonius Curio. Given Crassus' history of acting as something of a patron to ambitious young populists (Caesar, Clodius, Catalina), I could certainly see Crassus taking Curio under his wing as well. An alliance of Crassus' money with Clodius and Curio's popular appeal would be formidable.

I can see that happening, but Curio at this time is quite young, so that patronage might take a long time to bear fruit.

 

[bguy]

I think you're going a bit too far. If the triumvirate was already dead, why did Caesar let Crassus's son Publius serve in his army as a legate?

When Crassus broke with the Triumvirate in 58 BC, it was really only a break with Pompey. Crassus maintained friendly relations with Caesar the entire time (which was why Caesar was willing to take his son on as a legate.)

He also supplied Crassus 3/4 of the cavalry for his Parthian campaign and all the battle-hardened cavalry Crassus had (these were Gauls who served under Publius Crassus). Also Crassus as governor of Syria had a special law that allowed him to declare wars and this was passed in the Senate with the help of... Pompey and Caesar. Pompey disliked Crassus and Crassus loathed him, but Caesar was able to convince the two of them that the 3 of them could get stuff done together.

All of that occurred after the Luca Conference in 56 BC. Caesar brought Crassus back on board the Triumvirate at Luca with him agreeing to help Crassus and Pompey get elected to the consulship (and to support them in getting choice 5 year provincial governorships) in exchange for their agreeing to protect his land law and help him get his command in Gaul extended. I also think there was probably a side deal at Luca between Crassus and Pompey where Crassus agreed to call off Publius Clodius (who was making Pompey's life miserable at the time) and to support Pompey in having his man Aulus Gabinius restore Pompey's client, Ptolemy Auletes, to the Egyptian throne, in exchange for Pompey agreeing to prevent Aulus Gabinius from attacking the Parthians (and thus reserving the Parthian Campaign for Crassus.)

I can see that happening, but Curio at this time is quite young, so that patronage might take a long time to bear fruit.

Curio was old enough to be a tribune of the plebs by 50 BC, so he's coming of age to be a major player in Roman politics right as Caesar's governorship is winding down.

 

[Alex Zetsu]

I think all 3 of them left Luca happy with what they had. Interestingly right after this, Crassus went from indifferent to Egypt to being pro Ptolemy XII (or Ptolemy Auletes since it's very annoying with naming process being done under "imitating Epic Ancestors Syndrome"). I given this, think all of them left intending to keep their promises and the alliance.

Curio was old enough to be a tribune of the plebs by 50 BC, so he's coming of age to be a major player in Roman politics right as Caesar's governorship is winding down.

Yeah that's true, 50 BC is coming up.

 

[Fabius Maximus]

Ptolemy XII (or Ptolemy Auletes since it's very annoying with naming process being done under "imitating Epic Ancestors Syndrome").

Even worse when people had the same nicknames as their ancestors, giving us Ptolemy X Alexander I and Ptolemy XI Alexander II.