Need help with a TL

Clibanarius · Jul 29, 2011

Okay, so I'm doing an Eastern Roman TL where Belisarius wins at Callincinium (A draw OTL) and it's a great Roman victory.

Justinian orders to Belisarius to follow up on this and take as much Persian territory as possible.

Reinforcements are on the way in the form of Roman troops, Mercenaries, and Axumite Naval support however they will take at least six months (at best) to arrive and would probably be in shape to fight if they moved that fast.

Facing Belisarius is an combined arms force of tough and well-trained Persians and they have Khosrau commanding them.

My question is this:

How would you conquer the Sassanians?

Thespitron 6000 · Jul 29, 2011

Clibanarius said:
How would you conquer the Sassanians?

I would not.

It's just that the Persian-Roman Wars were just such a colossal waste of time and resources for everyone involved. Justinian would actually probably be better off simply using the victory to extract a long-lasting and beneficial peace from Khosrau, and worry about cementing his hegemony over Italy instead. The other option is to push on down the Euphrates to Ctesiphon, but how lasting would a victorious campaign that way be? Not very, if I had to speculate.

Elfwine · Jul 29, 2011

Thespitron 6000 said:
I would not.

It's just that the Persian-Roman Wars were just such a colossal waste of time and resources for everyone involved. Justinian would actually probably be better off simply using the victory to extract a long-lasting and beneficial peace from Khosrau, and worry about cementing his hegemony over Italy instead. The other option is to push on down the Euphrates to Ctesiphon, but how lasting would a victorious campaign that way be? Not very, if I had to speculate.

I'm going to second this, though I think such a beneficial peace including adjusting the borders in the ERE's favor (into Mesopotamia and Armenia, particularly the latter) is doable - maybe not lasting, but doable.

Winning battles against the Persians is relatively easy, conquering and holding Persia is somewhere between a nightmare and an impossibility.

Clibanarius · Jul 30, 2011

Doesn't that simply continue the cycle though? Of Persians and Romans signing a Treaty and then having peace for a few years before someone breaks it and then they both go to war again until they're exhausted and a third power rises and puts the hurt on both. Like it did IOTL.

And let's say that Justinian doesn't want a peace, he deems the Persians as Rome's biggest threat and thinks he can be remembered as a second Alexander.

Thespitron 6000 · Jul 30, 2011

Clibanarius said:
And let's say that Justinian doesn't want a peace, he deems the Persians as Rome's biggest threat and thinks he can be remembered as a second Alexander.

So he can fight his way through Persia and DIE IN INDIA.

Elfwine · Jul 30, 2011

Clibanarius said:
Doesn't that simply continue the cycle though? Of Persians and Romans signing a Treaty and then having peace for a few years before someone breaks it and then they both go to war again until they're exhausted and a third power rises and puts the hurt on both. Like it did IOTL.

That's really about all that either can expect. Neither is strong enough to completely eliminate the other, and both are powerful enough to be hard to bind by any peace terms the other tries to impose.

And let's say that Justinian doesn't want a peace, he deems the Persians as Rome's biggest threat and thinks he can be remembered as a second Alexander.

TheSpitron answered this better than I can. Alexander had the benefit of a vastly superior army, among other things in his favor, and he lead to Macedon being crippled as a state as a consequence of his actions.

A second Alexander even if possible would be worse than the cycle of war-treaty-war.

Clibanarius · Jul 30, 2011

Okay, so how does one end the cycle of War-Treaty/Sort of peace-War?

Elfwine · Jul 30, 2011

Clibanarius said:
Okay, so how does one end the cycle of War-Treaty/Sort of peace-War?

The Arab Conquest did a pretty good job of that. No, I don't mean by "No Persia, obviously" - the replacement was a bit more stable after the 9th century.

Besides that?

I'm not sure there really is one. As stated, neither is strong enough to conquer the other and neither is weak enough to be bound well by the other.

You might get something like what Maurice got, which presumably would have lasted a bit longer had he lived (entirely doable) - but that requires the Shah (I'm not sure if that's the proper title, Iran-experts forgive me) feeling in debt to the Romans.

"For once and for all" is an unrealistic goal.

Thespitron 6000 · Jul 30, 2011

If the Byzantines are strong enough from not engaging in a cycle of constant war with Persia, then assuming we haven't butterflied away Mohammed, then perhaps they'd be able to turn the Arabs east, towards Persia. Then we end up with a Mediterranean and Levantine Byzantium, and a Muslim Persia, maybe.