Trajan and Parthia.

The Roman Emperor conquers all of Parthia (Persia). It becomes a Roman province and is given priority by Trajan's successor Hadrian. Can the Romans actually hold it, given the long distance from the heart of the Roman empire and the hostility of the native population? Persia will become part of the Byzantine empire when the Roman empire divides. This means that the Byzantines will be in a much stronger position by the time that Islam comes on the scene. How does this change history?
 

mowque

Banned
All of it? :eek:

Parthian_Empire_248_%E2%80%93_224_%28BC%29.PNG
 
Can the Romans actually hold it,?
No
given the long distance from the heart of the Roman empire and the hostility of the native population?
Wow, you just saved me some time.
Persia will become part of the Byzantine empire when the Roman empire divides. This means that the Byzantines will be in a much stronger position by the time that Islam comes on the scene. How does this change history?
I don't know much about Roman history but I think that there might be some analogue to the Byzantine Empire if the Roman empire collapses but Persia would have broken away a long, long time ago and Islam would be butterflied away.
 
Totally right of course, but then how did Alexander do it with just tiny Greece? Were things just less "nationalized" then without centuries of conflict between the two? I mean surely the Persians v. Greeks thing was pretty well entrenched by then?
 
Totally right of course, but then how did Alexander do it with just tiny Greece? Were things just less "nationalized" then without centuries of conflict between the two? I mean surely the Persians v. Greeks thing was pretty well entrenched by then?

Alexander ruled the mountainous kingdom of Macedonia, a bunch of subjugated city-states in Greece, and some vassalized Thracian kingdoms north and east of Macedonia. Plus, he had the new and dynamic model army created by his father. That, and the contingents of Thracian warriors and Greek mercenaries and drafted citizen-soldiers provided him with with the instrument he needed to take on Persia.

If I was Trajan, I would have just been content with the conquest of Mesopotamia. Problem at the time was the spate of rebellions among the Palmyrans, Arabs, and Jewish populations in the eastern provinces. The invasion of Parthian territory was a threat to their livelyhood. The Palmyrans enjoyed being the mercantile middlemen between Rome and the Parthians, while the Judeans saw Parthian territory as a natural refuge from Roman rule.
 
Totally right of course, but then how did Alexander do it with just tiny Greece? Were things just less "nationalized" then without centuries of conflict between the two? I mean surely the Persians v. Greeks thing was pretty well entrenched by then?

Alexander didn't hold it, dying before he had a chance to try, and he ruled Persia as King of Kings anyway from Babylon, not as King of Macedonia from Pella.
 
Alexander had his new army and a not-so-great Persia to take on. Besides that, looking at a map, you can see that it was really Persia with a Hellenistic king and territyories in Greece and Macedon. Rome will obviously not be moving east. Basically, it's unlikely that Persaia will be a long term Roman territory.
 
Top