PC/WI: Crassus victorious against Parthia

The stunning defeat at Carrhae could easily be avoided, but I'm wondering if Crassus can actually defeat or drive off Surena's army from Mesopotamia entirely. After that, would Orodes II try to give battle to the Romans following their Armenian campaign, or stall them?

I quite like this PoD because of its double major effects: a successful, early invasion of the Parthian Empire and a vastly altered dynamic in the ending years of the First Triumvirate and the lead up to the civil war.

But, first things first. Crassus at 60 doesn't seem to be the brightest military bulb, so is it feasible that he could pull off such a campaign. Barring that, would it be in character of him to resign command to his son Publius (who was quite the rising star apparently) or another of his commanders, such as Longinius?
 
The stunning defeat at Carrhae could easily be avoided, but I'm wondering if Crassus can actually defeat or drive off Surena's army from Mesopotamia entirely. After that, would Orodes II try to give battle to the Romans following their Armenian campaign, or stall them?

I quite like this PoD because of its double major effects: a successful, early invasion of the Parthian Empire and a vastly altered dynamic in the ending years of the First Triumvirate and the lead up to the civil war.

But, first things first. Crassus at 60 doesn't seem to be the brightest military bulb, so is it feasible that he could pull off such a campaign. Barring that, would it be in character of him to resign command to his son Publius (who was quite the rising star apparently) or another of his commanders, such as Longinius?

Problem is that Crassus at this point is the weakest member of the Triumvirate, relatively speaking. He's old and he's rusty. Yes, he's rich but Caesar has far more military experience (plus an actual army) and Pompeius is viewed as Rome's best general. Crassus needs a big victory to get himself back on the political map and frankly it's been far too long since his last real campaign. So the chances of Crassus handing command over to a subordinate are quite low. That said, there are two possible PODs. The first is that Crassus takes Artavazdes II up on his suggestion that he invade via Armenia, with the Armenians providing the cavalry support that Crassus lacked, not to mention the local knowledge. The second is that Crassus is warned that Ariamnes is in fact in the pay of the Parthians, does not take his advice and stays close to the rivers so that his army doesn't run short of water.
 

tenthring

Banned
The problem is always the same. Those men on horseback can always run away. How do legionaries bring them to heal.

Even when Trajan rolled in there is was short lived.
 
The problem is always the same. Those men on horseback can always run away. How do legionaries bring them to heal.

Even when Trajan rolled in there is was short lived.

Quite a few ways to deal with it. The Romans can avoid the flat plains of the Tigris/Euphrates valley and instead go north via Armenia and on into Persia. If they face the main Parthian army there (which was composed primarily of infantry) and with the support if Armenians they could pull off a victory, even under Crassus.
 
The stunning defeat at Carrhae could easily be avoided, but I'm wondering if Crassus can actually defeat or drive off Surena's army from Mesopotamia entirely. After that, would Orodes II try to give battle to the Romans following their Armenian campaign, or stall them?

I quite like this PoD because of its double major effects: a successful, early invasion of the Parthian Empire and a vastly altered dynamic in the ending years of the First Triumvirate and the lead up to the civil war.

But, first things first. Crassus at 60 doesn't seem to be the brightest military bulb, so is it feasible that he could pull off such a campaign. Barring that, would it be in character of him to resign command to his son Publius (who was quite the rising star apparently) or another of his commanders, such as Longinius?
Well, my personal opinion:
Some things are unavoidable, inevitable, you just cannot do anything to change that; as some things are determined to happen under almost any circumstances.
And one of such things is 'the first attempt of the Romans to conquer all or part of the Parthian Empire has to be an epic failure'.
I'll try to explain why.

A few hundred years of Roman military successes proved to the Romans that their way of making war is a universal one and is perfect against all kinds of enemies -
- you take lots and lots of foot soldiers, legionaries, best infantry in the world no doubt, and move them against an enemy. A little bit of cavalry and specialized missile troops is good, but not necessary.
And that is the perfect recipe for a total disaster in the first war against the Parthians.

That was the first time when the Romans encountered the army which main fighting force is excellent horse archers and heavily armored cavalry cataphracts. The main purpose of such an army is to find the infantry in the open far from water, make it stop under heavy fire of arrows for half a day or so and when they are finally powerless - annihilate them with cataphracts (if the foot soldiers do not surrender first).

My point here is - such lessons are not taught empirically. The Romans have to lose an army in the war against the Parthians to realize that truth.
So the first Roman invasion into Parthia is destined to fail - 95% probability.

The second invasion and the next ones have better chances for success though. As the Romans already know 'how to lose an infantry army in the war against cavalry army of horse archers and cataphractes'.
Well, Antonius failed as well two times IIRC.

But in my opinion Julius Caesar could make it as he was a genius. He would take a better route, take more cavalry and missile troops.
 
Last edited:
Top