Persian Rome pre-476

Hello y'all,

Question, I know this is rather ASB but still. What would it take for the Persians to conquer/plunder the city of Rome during the Empire?

I'm asking that because after all the Romans did conquer Mesopotamia a few times (Julian for example) even if they couldn't hold it.

Now, it would be a big campaign, but again the romans did do far reaching campaigns, like Ceasar who went all the way to Britain.

So, this is also a why? The Persians seemed like good foes but it seems like the Romans were better at the offensive? Is it just the terrain with the Syrian desert?
 

GdwnsnHo

Banned
The reason that the Romans could plunder mesopotamia whilst Persia couldn't do the same to Italy is simple - The Mediterranean Sea.

The Romans could march to Mesopotamia easily, but the Persians would need to take territory, build a navy, and then sail to Italy.

Even if they went by land, they'd need the sea for supplies otherwise their logistics would be a nightmare.

It would require a series of wars - but if they could take Egypt and Syria? Then they'd have the money, ports, and supplies to pillage Italia, if they win the naval war first.

Possible, but it will not be easy.
 
We have no evidence, that even the Sassanids, who saw themselves the successors of the Achaemenids (Dareios, Xerxes, ...), ever goaled for more than the roman East (plus perhaps Thracia and Greece). We even have no solid evidence, that this really was the official longterm strategy of the Sassanids. Some roman authors said so, but this might have been pure roman propaganda.

And even from there, with huge fleets in Alexandria and Antiochia, it is a long way to go. And finally the mother of all quesions: Why the hell the Sassanids should do such a stupid thing like invading Italy?

Coming back to reality, the Sassanids plundered Antiochia, the capital of the roman orient more than once. They also finally made it, to conquer Egypt, Syria and most of Minor Asia, but then have been luckily fought back by the romans beyond the Euphrat again. And then, when both empires were fully exhausted, Mohammed and his arabian cavalry appeared.

So yes, the answer to your questions is damn close to ASB.
 
Last edited:
I think "rather" can be removed from your first post,
It's almost entirely ASB! :D

For it to be plausible Persia would have to field a huge navy in the Mediterranean sea, and conquer a hell of a lot of eastern ports, and as shown Persia much preferred their land forces to their navy. You're also assuming an divergent much earlier if talking pre-476 (was it suppose ot be post- ???)
(think of what was happening in that time with the empire eg. Ionian revolt, and the Greco-Perisan wars)

For a land force to succeed they'd have to conquer all the territory between the Persian Empire and Rome, and considering they failed in Greece in OTL that wouldn't be possible as they'd be stopped.

Especially Pre 476 which is basically just after both Darius and Xerxes have been beaten back by the Greeks, How would they possibly get around to attack Rome??


to answer your question, IMO a Persian victory in the Greco-Persia wars could allow this but not pre-476BC as pacifying the east of europe would take so much longer and the divergence and factors that would bring in is so deep in ASB territory I can't think it all through
 
JJL, I was more thinking against the Romans than the greeks but thanks for your answer ;)

So basically, it's just that they had no desire to go all the way and that they would have needed a huge navy? Couldn't they march through the Balkans? The Dardanelles strait isn't that big after all


Again, I know this is ASB, it's just that I'm curious as to why exactly it is^^
 
Top