Roman Persia

Hermanubis

What are the possibilities of a Roman conquest of The Parthian or Sassanid Persian Empire?

*Bonus if the Roman Empire in question is a Post Constantine Christian Empire

** Double For a Post Islamic Conquest Byzantine Persia(I would think that this would be near Impossible, however...)
 

DominusNovus

Roman TL...

Though I give them a few (maybe too many) lucky breaks there. China could help out, they sent an army as far as the Caspian, apparently. And both China and Rome would benefit from demolishing Parthia.

Perhaps if we let Caesar not get assassinated until after a Parthian campaign. Maybe he takes Mesopotamia and Armenia. Augustus/Antony, and whoever follows them then whittle away at Persia Proper. I figure, w/o Messopotamia, the Parthian Empire would be severely weakened. Kinda like the Byzantines losing Syria and Egypt.
 

Vulpes82

I don't give good odds to this. The Roman Empire was larger than it was able to effectively be managed in OTL, let alone adding huge territories in Mesopotamia and Persia. There's a reason Trajan pulled out of Mesopotamia: he knew it was indefensible and ungovernable. It'd be way too much to chew even if we're talking a Byzantine Roman Empire. Of course, if it DID happen, Islamic conquest of the Middle East and even beyond could have been made even easier than it was in OTL (and it was pretty easy due to the exhaustion of the Persian and Byzantine empires at the time following their wars with each other).
 

God_of_Belac

Well, for a post-Islamic conquest Byzantium, they had about 5 years to do this conquest before the Sassanid Empire stopped existing. I'd say that without a conquest in preislamic times (rolled back, of course) there'd be no way to have a conquest during Islam.

Assuming that the Byzantine Empire had somehow conquered Mesopotamia and Iran and held it for some time, you'd need another great Byzantine general like Belisarius or Narses, to head east either around 700 or 750. He'd destroy the Umayyad caiphate at Damascus in either event, then march down Mesopotamia. Once Mesopotamia was in Byzantine hands (much like the campaigns of the late 500s/early 600s), the scattered, divided Islamic factions could be defeated, with many probably reconverting, especially from the 'Umayyad side. Then it'd be another huge campaign to get into Iran, but the Muslim presence there wasn't as strong as it was in Syria/Iraq/Egypt, and if this all happened around 700 there wouldn't be much establishment out there anyhow.

For a preislamic conquest, once again look at the 500s-600s. Have the capture of Ctesiphon come earlier and with less trouble, then have a civil war divide the remainder of Persia so the Romans could lick their wounds and keep marching on. They couldn't hold Iran, but they damn well could conquer it.
 

Midgard

Actually Byzantine conquest of what was once Persia was a distinct possibility during the reign of John Tzimisces, had John lived for a few more years. His successes in the East were rather spectacular, and were only stopped by his rather premature death at 51. He was within fairly short distance of Baghdad, and had he decided to press on, Persian lands and Mesopotamia could have been next... he had every chance to succeed.
 

DominusNovus

How about this:

Rome and Persia avoid those wars just prior to Islam (or they're not so bad). Or, have some envoys between the Arabs and the Romans keep the Arabs from attacking west. Regardless, have them double-team Persia. It should go down.

Butterfly a civil war amongst the Muslims. Not too hard. You've got all that caliphal intrigue, the beginnings of the Sunni/Shia split, and the Kharijites. A three way civil war is quite possible.

With all the instability, Rome can sweep in. Perhaps, they could even get some Zoroastrian support agains the Muslims.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top