On eastern shores – A Roman Timeline
- Thread starter Alcsentre Calanice
- Start date
Don't ask me, ask Zăgan.
Paint.net (not the windows paint
) paint.net is available for free on the net.I use natural earth data, they have very good maps.
I really like this timeline, even though the "butterlfy away Christianity" is ASB in my personal opinion.
Will the empire expand towards Germania or will it create more outposts in Africa and South East Asia?
Will the empire expand towards Germania or will it create more outposts in Africa and South East Asia?
All in its proper time. The Goths are coming from the north, and the Empire has to deal with this "little" Sassanian problem that developed in the east
Caput Vicesimus Quartus: The Prelude
The Roman government was very concerned about the events on the Roman borders. The Germanic limes was calm for the moment, but on the Danube, the Goths grew larger and larger and seemed to prepare for new invasions. And in the east, the permanently quarreling Parthian rulers had been replaced by the Persian dynasty of the Sassanians, which proved to be the champions of unity, strength and effectiveness.
The first Sassanian King of Kings, Ardashir I, knew the Roman Empire from reports of merchants and from his own journeys to Babylonia. He acknowledged the advantages of Roman meritocracy, bureaucracy and military and worked hard to centralize his own, albeit feudal empire: Even if Ardashir couldn't get rid of the Persian and Parthian magnates, he succeeded in limiting their power as much as possible.
Ardashir's son however, Shapur I, chose a much more dangerous model than Rome: The First Persian Empire, ruled by the Achaemenids. Shapur was obsessed with restoring the old Persian borders in the east (the Indus) as well as in the west (Egypt and Thrace). In the first years of his reign, this seemed to be mere propaganda, and the Roman reponsible were still oonvinced that Shapur would fail because of the noblemen's opposition.
Then came Shapur's eastern campaign against the Kushans, restoring large parts of the ancient Persian Empire. And still, the Romans didn't bother with conflicts between barbarians. Shapur celebrated his triumph in Ecbatana, while his satraps established a working admistration in the eastern territories. He sent the Persian warriors home and made grandiosely empty promises of peace on the western border.
But even if Shapur had wanted peace with the Romans – he was persuaded that his empire could only prosper through expansion, and since all of Persia's wealthy neighboring areas were under Roman control, new conquests would inevitably lead to a conflict between the Sassanian and the Roman Empire. And Shapur was determined to win this struggle and to do what nobody had done before: Overcoming the Roman eagles.
During his youth, Shapur had learned Greek and read the Greek historians dealing with Roman history. He wasn't a particular gifted tactician, but a bookworm and ideologist, a superb writer and a passable orator. He studied the battles of Hannibal and Mithridates; after some point, he was convinced that vanquishing the legions was only a question of mobility, surprise and superior weapons.
On the other side of the Mediterranean, another of Hannibal's mental disciples worked hard to catch up with the superiority of oriental cavalry tactics. In 1015 AUC [1], when Lucius turned 21, he received his letter of recall and boarded a ship for Ostia. Arrived at Rome, he was told that troops from the Rhine border were redeployed on the Danube for an offensive against Gothia.
But this didn't happen. During March 1015 AUC, Persian troops surprisingly crossed the river Eulaios and destroyed the legions of Babylonia and Assyria inferior in numbers. They didn't lay siege to the fortified cities – however, they devastated the hinterlands to endanger the cities' food supply, forcing some minor towns to capitulate even without being under serious military threat. Other cities, mainly populated by orientals without the privileges of colonies, simply defected to the Persians and acclaimed Shapur as their King of Kings.
The First Persian War had begun.
[1] 262 CE
The Roman government was very concerned about the events on the Roman borders. The Germanic limes was calm for the moment, but on the Danube, the Goths grew larger and larger and seemed to prepare for new invasions. And in the east, the permanently quarreling Parthian rulers had been replaced by the Persian dynasty of the Sassanians, which proved to be the champions of unity, strength and effectiveness.
The first Sassanian King of Kings, Ardashir I, knew the Roman Empire from reports of merchants and from his own journeys to Babylonia. He acknowledged the advantages of Roman meritocracy, bureaucracy and military and worked hard to centralize his own, albeit feudal empire: Even if Ardashir couldn't get rid of the Persian and Parthian magnates, he succeeded in limiting their power as much as possible.
Ardashir's son however, Shapur I, chose a much more dangerous model than Rome: The First Persian Empire, ruled by the Achaemenids. Shapur was obsessed with restoring the old Persian borders in the east (the Indus) as well as in the west (Egypt and Thrace). In the first years of his reign, this seemed to be mere propaganda, and the Roman reponsible were still oonvinced that Shapur would fail because of the noblemen's opposition.
Then came Shapur's eastern campaign against the Kushans, restoring large parts of the ancient Persian Empire. And still, the Romans didn't bother with conflicts between barbarians. Shapur celebrated his triumph in Ecbatana, while his satraps established a working admistration in the eastern territories. He sent the Persian warriors home and made grandiosely empty promises of peace on the western border.
But even if Shapur had wanted peace with the Romans – he was persuaded that his empire could only prosper through expansion, and since all of Persia's wealthy neighboring areas were under Roman control, new conquests would inevitably lead to a conflict between the Sassanian and the Roman Empire. And Shapur was determined to win this struggle and to do what nobody had done before: Overcoming the Roman eagles.
During his youth, Shapur had learned Greek and read the Greek historians dealing with Roman history. He wasn't a particular gifted tactician, but a bookworm and ideologist, a superb writer and a passable orator. He studied the battles of Hannibal and Mithridates; after some point, he was convinced that vanquishing the legions was only a question of mobility, surprise and superior weapons.
On the other side of the Mediterranean, another of Hannibal's mental disciples worked hard to catch up with the superiority of oriental cavalry tactics. In 1015 AUC [1], when Lucius turned 21, he received his letter of recall and boarded a ship for Ostia. Arrived at Rome, he was told that troops from the Rhine border were redeployed on the Danube for an offensive against Gothia.
But this didn't happen. During March 1015 AUC, Persian troops surprisingly crossed the river Eulaios and destroyed the legions of Babylonia and Assyria inferior in numbers. They didn't lay siege to the fortified cities – however, they devastated the hinterlands to endanger the cities' food supply, forcing some minor towns to capitulate even without being under serious military threat. Other cities, mainly populated by orientals without the privileges of colonies, simply defected to the Persians and acclaimed Shapur as their King of Kings.
The First Persian War had begun.
[1] 262 CE
I expected exactly that, as soon as the Eastern Empire is united again. The Exercitus Armeniae and the Exercitus Mesopotamiae you described above are too small, in order to repulse the army of the King of Kings. And with the enemy sitting in the Zagros Mountains with a highly mobile cavalry army, the advance warning times are way too long, in order to combine the armies.
I would have deployed 6 legions (plus auxilia = 60.000 men) to Armenia and 6 legions to Mesopotamia. Not that much scattered all over the place, because the army has to be ready to take the sudden hit from the King of King's army. You might think, that 12 legions+ are crazy. But it is not that much. The romans had about 6-7 legions in Cappadocia, Syria and Iudaea. With the new provinces and armies, they can reduce Cappadocia to 0 and Syria to 1. With Iudaea still 1 this means a reduction from 7 to 2 legions. So the 12 legions are just 7 more, which should be financially feasible, almost just with the new rich provinces.
But you have choosen the more interesting scenario. The romans were mean as usual.
PS: Well, I would had expected, that the governor of Mesopotamia, which is under permanent influence of all these oriental kings, becomes corrupted, consolidates an alliiance, declares himself the new King of Kings and shows the roman emperor the worst case of usurpation imaginable at all. But this is just me. A pessimist, if it comes to roman history. However, I guess the good old Sassanids may do the job, too.
PSS: I hope that the Goths and other germans are real gentlemen. And wait, until your young emperor is done with his eastern campaign.
I would have deployed 6 legions (plus auxilia = 60.000 men) to Armenia and 6 legions to Mesopotamia. Not that much scattered all over the place, because the army has to be ready to take the sudden hit from the King of King's army. You might think, that 12 legions+ are crazy. But it is not that much. The romans had about 6-7 legions in Cappadocia, Syria and Iudaea. With the new provinces and armies, they can reduce Cappadocia to 0 and Syria to 1. With Iudaea still 1 this means a reduction from 7 to 2 legions. So the 12 legions are just 7 more, which should be financially feasible, almost just with the new rich provinces.
But you have choosen the more interesting scenario. The romans were mean as usual.
PS: Well, I would had expected, that the governor of Mesopotamia, which is under permanent influence of all these oriental kings, becomes corrupted, consolidates an alliiance, declares himself the new King of Kings and shows the roman emperor the worst case of usurpation imaginable at all. But this is just me. A pessimist, if it comes to roman history. However, I guess the good old Sassanids may do the job, too.
PSS: I hope that the Goths and other germans are real gentlemen. And wait, until your young emperor is done with his eastern campaign.
Last edited:
They were simply stupid and too avaricious to form the additional legions you want for the defense of Mesopotamia.
If Rome conquers more provinces (Persia, Media, Parthia...) that's quite plausible. What about a Roman Empire divided into three parts? The west, the east (Byzantium) and Persia?
Sure
until your young emperor is done with his eastern campaign.
Well, it's 262 CE. Lucius is the son of Alexander and a young nobleman, but he isn't emperor. His father, the emperor Alexander, died only in 270 CE. I know I'm not always clear.
As we already discussed, I am heavily convinced, that centralism was a critical success factor of the roman empire. Division just leads to separatism and war of brothers. We need an idea, how to expand the roman empire, without overstretching.
I am sure you will find the philosopher's stone.
I am sure you will find the philosopher's stone.
ASB gives the Romans railway, telegraph and representative democracy?
The governance of the Empire is going to be difficult no matter what happens. IMO the Empire could benefit from a form of Viceroy or "Emperors Hands" - Essentially nominating someone to be "as the Emperor" in a region. So the Hand in Gaul, Germania and Raetia, the Hand in Illyria and Thracia, the Hand in Armenia, Mesopotamia, Assyria and Babylonia (as examples) - all subservient to the Emperor (who IMO, is likely to be in Rome or an Alt-Constantinople, or some other new purpose-built capital). The key being that the Hands don't actually collectively rule that much of the Empire, mainly the frontiers. So there is the centralization of Rome - with the equivalent of the Emperor on the frontiers.
However, all vows are made to the Emperor of Rome - not his hands, and perhaps explicitly not to the hands, so whilst they have power, they have it as part of a heirarchy within the position of Emperor, rather than as part of the administration and military proper.
Although in all seriousness, are we going to see an alt-Constantinople? Or are we going to a Syrian Capital? Or even one built on the eastern edge of the Nile Delta? Ruling from Rome is so 1st Century
However, all vows are made to the Emperor of Rome - not his hands, and perhaps explicitly not to the hands, so whilst they have power, they have it as part of a heirarchy within the position of Emperor, rather than as part of the administration and military proper.
Although in all seriousness, are we going to see an alt-Constantinople? Or are we going to a Syrian Capital? Or even one built on the eastern edge of the Nile Delta? Ruling from Rome is so 1st Century
Isn't that what they tried and failed in Qing China?The governance of the Empire is going to be difficult no matter what happens. IMO the Empire could benefit from a form of Viceroy or "Emperors Hands" - Essentially nominating someone to be "as the Emperor" in a region. So the Hand in Gaul, Germania and Raetia, the Hand in Illyria and Thracia, the Hand in Armenia, Mesopotamia, Assyria and Babylonia (as examples) - all subservient to the Emperor (who IMO, is likely to be in Rome or an Alt-Constantinople, or some other new purpose-built capital). The key being that the Hands don't actually collectively rule that much of the Empire, mainly the frontiers. So there is the centralization of Rome - with the equivalent of the Emperor on the frontiers.
However, all vows are made to the Emperor of Rome - not his hands, and perhaps explicitly not to the hands, so whilst they have power, they have it as part of a heirarchy within the position of Emperor, rather than as part of the administration and military proper.
Although in all seriousness, are we going to see an alt-Constantinople? Or are we going to a Syrian Capital? Or even one built on the eastern edge of the Nile Delta? Ruling from Rome is so 1st Century
Not the foggiest - any idea of what that system was called in Qing China?
@TC9078 is presumably referring to the Governor-General system, which actually worked fairly efficiently contrary to what they are asserting. Essentially, the Qing created a new bureaucratic level, the "governor-generals," whose jurisdiction generally included multiple provinces[1] - actually, Qing governor-general jurisdictions matched Chinese economic macroregions more closely than the provinces - primarily in order to improve military and logistical coordination across multiple regions.
[1] There was a Governor-General solely for the single province of Sichuan for most of the Qing, and some inner provinces like Shandong had no Governor-General at all.
Ah, in which case, no. Whilst similar, I'm not suggesting that.
I'm suggesting that a sub-hierarchy exists - not an addition to the current one (if that doesn't make sense, I can explain further) - within the office of Emperor - rather than a new level within the current hierarchy. Whilst it sounds pedantic, it means that they only have their authority as a result of the Emperor - they have no claim, or authority of their own, they are simply a proxy of his authority, where assigned.
Not only that, but they don't exist throughout the majority of the Empire - but only on the frontiers - enough resources and manpower to provide sufficient defense/offense for their local area, whilst the Emperor can come along with his forces to the area.
Some Foederti would be pretty useful right about now, establish some Germanic and Slavic Kingdoms in the Persian empire and you can have all the benefits of trade (including arms dealing) without having to worry about revolts or any one power rising to dominance; at least until the Huns/Alans/Bulgars/Magyars/Goths come to say hello but no one at the time is going to know that will ever happen.
That would be one hell of a migration! I'd be all for it, but the costs of ensuring the Slavic Kingdom that marches through the Roman Empire to the Persian is large - unless they travel via the Black Sea, across the Caucuses and around the Caspian Sea. Difficult, still in Roman territory the whole way, but entry into Persia from Mazandaran (it may need an invasion to secure) would certainly lead to a transformation of Persia - and may even lead to Latin/Greek as a Lingua Franca over the area.
How tempted would the Germanic and Slavic peoples BE by an offer of all the wealth of Persia at their feet? Because we need to know if they'd accept the offer first.
How is your model different from the 1s century AD? The romans had huge armies at their major borders: Germania Inferior, Germania Superior, Pannonia, Moesia, Syria. Plus some smaller armies elsewhere. The legates had no imperium but were just deputies of the emperor appointed by the emperor and fully dependant on him. The armies usually have been strong enough to defend their border. But then the romans started to split provinces (e.g. Pannonia, Dacia). Not just by administrative reasons, but also to get smaller, less dangerous armies.
I agree, that we need bigger armies, usually capable to defend their border without the emperor and his central field army. But how do you avoid, that in your model, a big army marches against Rome? And please dont tell me something about vows. Legates and legionaries ignored them too often.
I was under the impression that typical Legates (rather than the Diplomatic ones) were part of the military hierarchy? Whereas specifically these are not. I may be mistaken/confused.
Typically I would say that the Emperor has a larger army than the hands - but that might well not work - I guess you'd have to do it via a change in how the army pays its troops. Troop earnings aren't gold in hand in the field, but instead are held in Rome, for their retirement, and releasable to the soldiers family. Since the Central army is based there (and if either permanently moves, I would say the other has to go with it or some other consideration must be made). I guess a Roman "Fort Knox" for the Legions. If I had paper I'd add in promissory notes of that kind, but we make do without till then.
This way the soldiers who join such a rebellious army are going to be flat broke, their families will be flat broke too if they have one, as their gold would be forfeit to the Emperor. This doesn't account for looting, and short of attempting to confiscate loot, I don't think I have a good way to handle that.
Vows are nice for show, but the money should keep the troops in line, which renders ambitious Hands somewhat weak if they can't get access to gold supplies (which I would make exempt from the control of the Hands).
I don't know what the Roman quartermaster system was like, whether supplies were paid for locally, or charged to the Emperor - but I'd ideally like to see a change like that as well, where Hands don't tend to have access to cash with any ease, but instead rely on the Emperor for providing supplies.