Persian Empire wages war on Rome in Italy

What if the Persian Empire manages to attack the heart of the Roman Empire at some weak point in Roman history and besieges the eternal City itself ?
 
OK, how.

While the Archaemenid Empire was at its height Rome was an irrelevance, then you had the Diaodchi era and then the Persians would have had to fight through the whole of the Eastern Med to get to Rome.
 
Maybe if the Selucids manage to unite the Diadochi states, along with Greece and Macedonia. Need some pretty huge PODs though.
 
OK, how.

While the Archaemenid Empire was at its height Rome was an irrelevance, then you had the Diaodchi era and then the Persians would have had to fight through the whole of the Eastern Med to get to Rome.

Are there any possibilities, that during the Sassanid period something like that occured ? Maybe a naval landing in Ostia in the mids of a Roman succession civil war ?
 
Ok, from what ports? Where are the Sassanians going to get a port? Let's say they capture Antioch and Syria-where are they going to get the ships? Let's say they get the ships-where are they going to get the men to to send on a journey across the mediterranean while they still have to defend everything they have? If they get the men-how are they going to have the logistics to launch such an endeavor.


And if they have all that...the most important question is: Why? It will gain them nothing have an enormously high risk of completely failing, and is just a massive waste of resources.
 
If you're going with the Seleucids, that's slightly easier-have Antiochus be persuaded by Hannibal to actually go through with his strategy and give him 10,000 men to sail to Italy with. OTL, Antiochus didn't quite trust Hannibal enough to go through with it (to say nothing of the risks of just handing over 10,000 men to go on a risky expedition, given the manpower problems Hellenistic states had) but it's not completely ASB that he can be convinced-especially if those 10,000 men are mostly mercenaries or foreign troops.

Now besieging Rome on the other hand...that's not going to happen. Hannibal couldn't besiege Rome OTL, and with only 10,000 men (and however many Italian allies are still willing to defect over to him again, which I doubt will be many) he'd be lucky to have much success at all.
 

TFSmith121

Banned
Geography is like that, you know?

You seem to have a really strong belief that if some events went one way once, same outcome is guaranteed every single time similar events could have transpired.

Geography is like that, you know?

Call it the longue durée ...

I'll take Marc Bloch over Thomas Carlyle, thanks.

Best,
 
I could see it happening if we take a very broad view of what you call a "Persian" empire. If your POD is a more successful the Pharnacid Kings of Pontus claimed descendence from Persia, and Mithradites IV did challenge Rome.
 
I could see it happening if we take a very broad view of what you call a "Persian" empire. If your POD is a more successful the Pharnacid Kings of Pontus claimed descendence from Persia, and Mithradites IV did challenge Rome.
He'd never have the ability (or, the will or reason) to invade Italy. At most, you can stretch it to him supporting a slave rebellion (such as Spartacus) with money/advisors, or view Sertorius being successful and invading Italy as fulfilling the requirement since he was an ally of Mithradates.
 
What if the Persian Empire manages to attack the heart of the Roman Empire at some weak point in Roman history and besieges the eternal City itself ?

That's a good question. I mean you speak about "attack" and "besiege".
You do not mean "occupy" or "take".

I think that it is possible only with alternate Persian Empire. OTL Persian Empire is out of the question.

The good PoD for alternate Persian Empire would be the death of Alexander the Great during battle of the Granicus.
No, it'd better be Battle of Issus, the Persians needed to be properly scared in order to pay better attention to their Western border in the future.

So, Alexander is killed by a Persian arrow, the Macedonians and Greeks are cutting each other throats. The Persians are triumphant, restore their Empire and since then they are aware that a European army might invade Asia with disastrous consequences.

So this alternate Persian Empire has it's ups and downs. And it might happen that during the italian campaign of Hannibal the Persian Empire would be as it often was - the world power.
So this Persian Empire sees once again a highly aggressive European power which is an obvious threat to them. And after the battle of Cannes they might decide to send a Grand Fleet with an army of 20-30 000 into Italy.
Why not?
The point would not be to occupy, to conquer or take.
The point might be to besiege Rome without any intention to actually take it.
The intention of this Persian campaign in Italy might be to force the Romans to come to terms with Carthage and Hannibal. So that Rome would not be eliminated as an independent power; it might be greatly reduced. The Persians would not be interested in seeing the only great power in the West - Carthage or Rome. They would prefer two powers at least in order to play them against each other.
 
Not bad but this scenario needs the Archaemenids to control Greece and have the Romans make angry noises in its general direction. Otherwise Persia is more likely to side with Rome since Carthage is in a position to threaten their possessions in Egypt (more than they ever threatened the Ptolemaic dynasty which actually had its power centre in Egypt), and Rome would probably be seen as a valuable ally against the Greeks and Macedonians. Especially if it proves its worth by crushing Carthage.
 
Top