Poll: Would keeping Armenia, Mesopotamia and Assyria benefit or damage Rome

It would:

  • Save the Roman Empire

    Votes: 1 3.6%
  • Benefit Rome greatly

    Votes: 4 14.3%
  • Benefit Rome somewhat

    Votes: 11 39.3%
  • Equal benefits and damage to Roman Empire

    Votes: 5 17.9%
  • Damage Rome somewhat

    Votes: 1 3.6%
  • Damage Rome greatly

    Votes: 1 3.6%
  • Destroy the Roman Empire

    Votes: 2 7.1%
  • Little to no difference

    Votes: 3 10.7%

  • Total voters
    28

Goobo

Gone Fishin'
Poll of how good keeping Armenia, Mesopotamia and Assyria would have been for the Roman empire.


Post your reasons if you want to.


Edit: Equal benefits and damage to Roman Empire means it benefits and damages Rome equally. Little to no difference means it does almost nothing.
 
Last edited:

Deleted member 67076

If Rome has a frontier at the Zagros, I'd say those areas would be a net benefit. They are very wealthy, populous and offer access to the Persian gulf.
 
Little to no difference : Rome would have been forced to abandon these provinces, sooner or later, even if Hadrian doesn't.
These territories were simply too big, Persians too powerful, and the Germanic pressure on Danube too important to waste ressources on these provinces.
 
Holding these lands also stops the proxy war in Arabia allowing only Rome to deal with all the Arabs. This should improve trade and lighten the numbers of troops in Sryia and Palestein. You could see Roman troops march down the Red Sea putting in client leaders and bribing locals. Once that is done the focus can switch the the persian gulf. If Rome can hold Mesopotamia and Armenia they can work on keeping Persia divided as now they are much closer to the Highland powerbase. Taken Susa would help as well as that area isn't mountainous enough to use as a proper border. A Susa-Media-Atropene (east Armenia) Line could be held.
 
Top