Roman Caucasus? Would it be useful.

I was thinking that if the Romans either annex the client states along the Caucasus mountains or at least exerted more influence over them they could have gotten easier access to the Caspian sea where they could build a navy and any wars with Parthia would be easier then marching across Anatolia, Syria, and Mesopotamia.

Would it fail dramatically or would it make zero difference. I mean even if they don't provide too much tactical advantage they might be able to pay some taxes here and there.




Pic related, see the valley going from east to west just south of the North range.
caucasus.jpg
 

Abhakhazia

Banned
It would be difficult to hold, the terrain was rough and Armenian nobility was notoriously difficult to deal with it.

Not to mention, the Persians would always attack the territory, as it would expose their heartlands to Roman attack, and wouldn't be worth it for the manpower and treasure it required to defend.

Also, something to keep in mind is that the Romans would be conducted almost no trade over the Caspian, it was almost totally surrounded by hostile Scythians that didn't have much to trade.
 
It would be difficult to hold, the terrain was rough and Armenian nobility was notoriously difficult to deal with it.

Well there are some Alan chaps who would very much be happy to replace them, probably end up blowing up in your face but it would probably be useful short term.

Also I want to know just exactly how hard it was to hold, looking from satellite images it looks to be somewhat easy to hold if you had an entire legion stationed there or what not as long as you stay south of the Northern mountain range and maybe build some limes from the coast to said mountain range on both ends and I don't see how any threat other than the Parthians or maybe Alans in the future.

Also, something to keep in mind is that the Romans would be conducted almost no trade over the Caspian, it was almost totally surrounded by hostile Scythians that didn't have much to trade.

Well first time for everything I suppose, it would only be natural if they had territory on the Caspian sea they would look there for more trade. I would say it wouldn't be impossible for them to send someone to establish trade routes for Chinese goods that didn't have to pass through the Parthians.

If nothing else native traders would just be taxed and trade would come through how it always did. And the Romans could always find something to buy, be it slaves or whatnot tey would get at least an inkling of business done.

Also by the second century weren't Scythians totally vacant along the eastern coast of the Caspian sea and populated by proto-Huns and Dahae?
 
Last edited:
The romans controlled the Caucasus already more than they controlled Armenia since the 1st century AD.

Iberia was a roman client state. More than Armenia. Armenia was more often ruled by a parthian client king who was just enthroned by the roman emperor. A pretty lousy deal with the parthians.

Provincializing Iberia, Albania and Colchis would have been less beneficial than controlling it via client kings. So the romans did not provincialize the Caucasus by very good reasons. Also the Caspian Sea was not beneficial for the romans. Not by strategic reasons, because there was no partian province worth an attack beyond the Caspian Sea. And also not for trade with China. The Parthians never blocked or overtaxed the trade with India or China. Even not during war-times. The parthians were not suicidal or complete morons. And even IF the parthians would have blocked all trade with India and China, THIS would have been HIGHLY benficial for the roman economy!!! Unfortunately, they never did it :'(

So finally, the roman control over the Caucasus via client kingdoms was the best solution ever possible. A more intense control of Armenia would have been desirable. But Armenia was a bit challenging from a diplomatic point of view.

And do never forget: the foreign trade balance of the Roman Empire with India and China was negative and basically detrimental for the roman economy and contributed to the Fall of Rome. Everything which is able to reduce the volume of this trade should be very welcome. And everything able to increase or ease this trade should be avoided BY ALL MEANS!!!

PS: Just if you are not G.A.Washington who invented a "Roman India Company" owning indian farms and therefore keeping the profits and the roman silver inside of the empire.
https://www.alternatehistory.com/forum/threads/on-eastern-shores-–-a-roman-timeline.392038/
 
Last edited:
THIS would have been HIGHLY benficial for the roman economy!!! Unfortunately, they never did it

Restricting trade very good for economy? I'm sorry, could you elaborate on this? I'm curious. I feel like I'm not understanding something here that could be a potentially cool AH scenario.
 
Restricting trade very good for economy? I'm sorry, could you elaborate on this? I'm curious. I feel like I'm not understanding something here that could be a potentially cool AH scenario.

The romans had a negative foreign trade balance with India. They had almost nothing to pay for e.g. pepper in India or silk from China but roman silver (denari). Ok, some roman terra sigillata was found in India, but nothing to write home about. So silver went out of the empire and never came back. Archeology in India clearly proofs this. They found a lot of roman silver in India, but not even an indian dime in europe.

This contributed to silver shortage in the roman empire, which contributed to inflation, which contributed to the ruin of the roman economy, the desintegration of the roman state, and the very detriemental and badly needed reorganisation of the roman society by Diocletian and Constantine. And finally this idiocy contributed to the Fall of Rome. Not the only factor but one major factor!
 
The romans had a negative foreign trade balance with India. They had almost nothing to pay for e.g. pepper in India or silk from China but roman silver (denari). Ok, some roman terra sigillata was found in India, but nothing to write home about. So silver went out of the empire and never came back. Archeology in India clearly proofs this. They found a lot of roman silver in India, but not even an indian dime in europe.

This contributed to silver shortage in the roman empire, which contributed to inflation, which contributed to the ruin of the roman economy, the desintegration of the roman state, and the very detriemental and badly needed reorganisation of the roman society by Diocletian and Constantine. And finally this idiocy contributed to the Fall of Rome. Not the only factor but one major factor!

IRCC they did try to ban it but the demand was still there. In the end the higher profits just gave a premium to traders and smugglers. I think the main problem isn't trade in principle, but rather that Rome never made luxuries of sufficient quality to export.
 
IRCC they did try to ban it but the demand was still there. In the end the higher profits just gave a premium to traders and smugglers. I think the main problem isn't trade in principle, but rather that Rome never made luxuries of sufficient quality to export.
Even the Brits needed Opium to counter the losses by Chinese Tea. And they had a better clue about economy than the romans.
 
yes there was, Hyrcania was one of the most productive provinces in Parthia outside of Mesopotamia. Also it would mean invasions into Parthia proper would be much easier.

Hyrcania was the summer residence and the crown juwels of the parthian empire. Just an idiot invades it. Not only because it is small and economically fully irelevant, but due to the revenge of the parthians. And foremost because Hyrcania at the so called Red Snake Wall between the northern iranian mountians and the eastern coast of the Caspian Sea is one of the major invasion routes of the asian steppe tribes.

No roman general with a brain, wants to invade an HOLD Hyrcania!!!

By the same reason, no sane roman general would like to invade the province Parthia, the homeland of the parthians. Not because it is hard to hold such an homeland. But now this stupid suicidal braindead general has to cover 2-3 major invasion routes of asian steppe tribes. Hoooooraaay.
 
Last edited:
Hyrcania was the summer residence and the crown juwels of the parthian empire. Just an idiot invades it. Not only because it is small and economically fully irelevant, but due to the revenge of the parthians. And foremost because Hyrcania at the so called Red Snake Wall between the northern iranian mountians and the eastern coast of the Caspian Sea is one of the major invasion routes of the asian steppe tribes.

No roman general with a brain, wants to invade an HOLD Hyrcania!!!

By the same reason, no sane roman general would like to invade the province Parthia, the homeland of the parthians. Not because it is hard to hold such an homeland. But now this stupid suicidal generla has to cover 2-3 major invasion routes of asian steppe tribes. Hoooooraaay.

Now to be fair the Romans did had many Generals without good brains.
 
Now to be fair the Romans did had many Generals without good brains.
Well, somewhat. But after republican times the romans got emperors in order to hold these idiots back.

Well, if just Claudius would not had hold Galba and Chaucicus back, they would perhaps had conquered Germania again .... but thats another topic ;)
 
IRCC they did try to ban it but the demand was still there. In the end the higher profits just gave a premium to traders and smugglers. I think the main problem isn't trade in principle, but rather that Rome never made luxuries of sufficient quality to export.

Of course this was the problem. If you want to get a balanced trade you need enough goods to sell in India, India is actually demanding. But the romans had nothing, but a bit Terra Sigillata which archeologists found in India. They found much more roman silver than any other roman goods.

The Brits later solved the problem by conquering India and they sold Opium to China. Without Opium, the British Empire would had ruined itself with tea imports soon.
But both was not an option for the Roman Empire.

We do not know, how big this issue really was. We simply got not enough figures about the roman economy. I am convinced other issues inside of the roman empire contributed way more to the Fall of Rome. However, the negative foreign trade balance was an issue.
 
Last edited:
Well, somewhat. But after republican times the romans got emperors in order to hold these idiots back.

Well, if just Claudius would not had hold Galba and Chaucicus back, they would perhaps had conquered Germania again .... but thats another topic ;)

I think Claudius liked his head. The chances of Galba or Chaucicus trying to pull one coup to get the purple would be real if they had the control of the Rhine legions, Britannia is safer you need to control the navy to be able to pull that off.
 
I think Claudius liked his head. The chances of Galba or Chaucicus trying to pull one coup to get the purple would be real if they had the control of the Rhine legions, Britannia is safer you need to control the navy to be able to pull that off.
Actually Chaucicus was Legatus Augusti Germaniae inferior and Galba was Legatus Augusti Germaniae superior in 41 AD. So both actually controlled about 10-11 legions before Claudius started his campaign in Britain with Aulus Plautius who was Legatus Augusti Pannoniae these times.

Chaucicus raided Germnia perhaps up to the Weser again in the North and Galba bet the Chatti in Mid-Germnia at least twice.

So other than people often think, Germania was not silent between Varus (Teutoburg) and Maximinus Thrax (Harzhorn). Not even close!

Claudius could had used these 2 generals for the victories a stuttering and handicapped emperor needed badly. And they already had been victorius before Claudius decicded to waste 4 legions for a small not less troublesome island. And so he stopped the last chance to invade Germania. Which was at this point of time half done already.
 
Last edited:
Actually Chaucicus was Legatus Augusti Germaniae inferior and Galba was Legatus Augusti Germaniae superior in 41 AD. So both actually controlled about 10-11 legions before Claudius started his campaign in Britain with Aulus Plautius who was Lgatis Augusti Pannoniae thes times.

Chaucicus raided Germnia perhaps up to the Weser again in the North and Glaba bet the Chatti in Mid-Germnia at least twice.

So other than people often think, Germania was not silent between Varus (Teutoburg) and Maximinus Thrx (Harzhorn).

What I meant was that if they gained the prestige from conquering Germania, especially after Teutoburg, could be dangerous to Claudius. Raids and punitive expeditions don't give that much prestige as a conquest.
 
What I meant was that if they gained the prestige from conquering Germania, especially after Teutoburg, could be dangerous to Claudius. Raids and punitive expeditions don't give that much prestige as a conquest.
When Plautius finally had conquered Britannia, Claudius came along and rode on an african elephant to Camulodunum iirc. He could had done the same after Chaucicus and/or Galba finally bet the Cherusci as a revenge AND CONQUERED Germania up to the Elbe AGAIN. These guys already have been close anyways. Unfortunately Mattium the capital of the Chatti was already destroyed by Germanicus. So no option over there for Claudius riding an elephant.

But you are somewhat correct. A sucessful general in Germania is way closer to Rome, than a succesful general in Britannia.
Sometimes these roman emperors did not take a great strategic chance, because they feared the success of their generals. This was one of the major flaws of the principate, which was not that bad otherwise.

So how we get back to the Caucasus?
 
No roman general with a brain, wants to invade an HOLD Hyrcania!!!

Who said anything about hold? I meant just stop their for a while before going to Susa or some other Iranian city or just loot and pillage then leave.

Although letting Barbarians settle there would probably work too.

So how we get back to the Caucasus?

Well, what would the actual obstacles be in the way of Roman ownership or at least more influence than it did OTL?
 
Well, somewhat. But after republican times the romans got emperors in order to hold these idiots back.

Well, if just Claudius would not had hold Galba and Chaucicus back, they would perhaps had conquered Germania again .... but thats another topic ;)
Not so sure about that.The emperors can and often did produce disastrous generals,especially the crazy and incompetent emperors--the general who led the joint Roman invasion of Vandalic Africa for example.
 
The romans had a negative foreign trade balance with India. They had almost nothing to pay for e.g. pepper in India or silk from China but roman silver (denari). Ok, some roman terra sigillata was found in India, but nothing to write home about. So silver went out of the empire and never came back. Archeology in India clearly proofs this. They found a lot of roman silver in India, but not even an indian dime in europe.

This contributed to silver shortage in the roman empire, which contributed to inflation, which contributed to the ruin of the roman economy, the desintegration of the roman state, and the very detriemental and badly needed reorganisation of the roman society by Diocletian and Constantine. And finally this idiocy contributed to the Fall of Rome. Not the only factor but one major factor!
The negative trade balance with India went on for a long time indeed. Even the British only reversed the trade balance in India by first colonially destroying much of their manufacturing, then exported manufactured cotton textiles to India. The trade deficit with China went on for even longer.

The problem is that it's hard to see anything which the Romans could manufacture which would be in demand in India. If Rome had trade contact with the New World (implausible for a whole host of reasons which have been pointed out many times on this forum already) then traded chilli peppers and vanilla might help for a while, or at least give enough trade silver to allow the Roman economy to continue, but absent that I can't think of anything which the Romans could produce that India wanted in sufficient quantities.

Even if India developed a craze for garum, it wouldn't transport that far...
 
Top