What if Julian succeeded in installing a client king in Persia and ruled for decades

Could a long-lived Julian have tried it and succeded?

There are some huge issues with provincializing the East: culture, distance, usurpation and resistance.

Conquering the East might be easier than holding and integrating it. I am convinced, that in order to destroy any parthian/persian empire, you have to occupy and control all satrapies, which are important in terms of population and economy. These are Mesopotamia, Susiana, Media and Persis. If you conquer less, e.g. just Mesopotamia, expect the counterattack soon.

The regions behind the central iranian deserts (Bactria, Sogdiana, Aria, ...) as well as Carmania and Gedrosia are not that important from an economical point of view and as an recruitment base. Furthermore these central deserts northeast of Media/Persis were a pretty good border. Parthia is a special case. It is a dangerous and powerful satrapy and should be controlled, but the area west and east of the northern iranian mountains is also the main invasion route of asian steppe tribes. So Parthia is perfect for a well supported client kingdom, but just a lot of trouble if a province.

Now think about a roman governor in Mesopotama, Susiana, Media and Persis. Some larger provinces splitted in inferor and superior, plus Armenia and Charecene. Thats about 10 additional provinces about 1-3000 km away from Constantinople. With the late roman inflation of small provinces it is more like 30-40 additional provinces.

You need a lot of legions, especially to secure the new eastern border in Media, Armenia and perhaps Persis. And these governors and the duces/comites are influenced daily by the eastern nobles. We also saw during Trajans conquest some serious revolts in several cities. Some historians believe, that the main reason for Hadrian to give Mesopotamia up, was not the ongoing jewish revolt in his back or lack of money. This great roman-greek philosopher, who lived over years in Syria and knew the situation onsite, feared the heavy impact of oriental culture on the roman empire. Integrating greek and roman culture was already a challenge, but a big oriental part would perhaps be too much of a challenge. Don't get me wrong, the romans were perhaps nationalistic and rassistic against barbarians, but they were no fascists. Because they were world-champion in integration of cultures. Integration was THE success-factor of roman governance. But, this chunk might have been too large.

Except for this huge challenge for the society of the empire, I expect trouble with usurpation and separatism soon. How to control the governors over such a long distance? I like the idea of conquering the parthian or persian empire, but as more I think about the details and consequences, as less I believe it is feasible. Not with divide et impera and multiple client kings, not with a single puppet king-of-kings and not with provinces.

I would be more than happy, if you disagree and could tell me, how the romans could have done it.
 
Last edited:
Could a long-lived Julian have tried it and succeded?

Holding on to the east under direct control was a losing proposition that no Roman Emperor would be crazy enough to attempt. If they did, it would fall apart really, really, quickly. Rome was a Mediterranean Empire. Their empire was huge as it is-think about it, it controlled all of the western europen countries in today's European Union, plus Egypt, Syria, Palestine, Turkey, and a little further inland. Controlling an empire very far inland on the eastern half would be nigh impossible.

That said, the empire I think, could manage holding Mesopotamia if they were to make serious investments into holding it. The ideal outcome though, would be what happened after Trajan's campaign-the Parthian Empire was in a perpetual state of civil war until the end of Antoninus Pius' reign, and was thus unable to pose any challenge whatsoever to Rome until they put their house in order. Even then, it took a short campaign by Lucius Verres to sack Ctesiphon and Seleukia.

So I think what Julian was trying to do was deal the Sassanids a devastating blow that would leave them unable or unwilling to challenge Rome for a significant period of time, like Trajan did.
 
I agree with Agricola.

Now, if you'll let me go on a tangent here (you all can please ignore me if I'm being presumptuous): what if Julius Caesar had gone on with his planned campaigns in Illyricum and along the Danube, instead of being distracted by the Suebi and conquering Gaul, as in OTL? A POD of Ariovistus leading the Suebi to Normandy instead of down to the Rhone, or the Suebi simply not moving, could accomplish this.

Now Rome has a lot more "weight" and focus on the East (Illyricum and the Balkans up to the Danube) instead of West (all that land that Caesar conquered); will it be easier to govern and administer the East (even if Persia is conquered), or does this create so many butterflies that the governance of the Roman state (whether Republican or Imperial) becomes unmanageable?

Assuming nothing changes except for that Gaul is exchanged for "Danubia", will an Emperor shift the capital to the East much sooner than Constantine did? I for one can't see this happening so soon after the Republic's existence. The focus of the Roman state at the time was still very much on Rome.
 
That said, the empire I think, could manage holding Mesopotamia if they were to make serious investments into holding it.

Sly, do you know, that Trajan never really provincialized Mesopotamia?

He invaded Mesopotamia coming over Armenia and Media Adiabadene. Same route probably Julius Caesar planned and Antonius did in your TTL. It is unclear, if Media Adiabadene, which is the smaller western part of Media was ever the province Assyria you see in some maps. This province is just mentioned once in an unreliable source of the 6th century iirc. Perhaps it was a client-kingdom for a few years.

Trajan was the only roman empror who ever saw the persian gulf, thats right. But Charakene, which is the utter south part of Mesopotamia was a parthian client kingdom controlling the trade with India. And Trajan saw no reason to change the status of this king. So southern Mesopotamia became a roman client-kingdom.

Central Mesopotamia, which is the Ctesiphon area, was conquered, but then Trajan established a client-king, a member of the parthian royal family. However, this guy had no chance to hold his throne, without roman legions.

Northern Mesopotamia was not fully conquered. The romans never conquered Hatra which controls the southern part of North-Mesopotamia. The other cities just started a revolt, when Trajan was on his way back to Rome and died in Minor Asia. Perhaps the often mentioned province of Mesopotamia was exactly this: a part of northern Mesopotamia. Like the small province Mesopotamia of the late empire after Diocletian.

At this point of time, Armenia was already reconquered by the parthians partially and the romans had to agree to an unfavorable peace treaty. So all maps you can find about Mesopotamia in Trajans time are wrong.

Trajans campaign was a desaster, especially financially. I agree, that it was a desaster for the Asarkids, too. But I am not convinced, that the romans were able to control even Mesopotamia up to the persian gulf.

Hadrian rejected to do it, even if he had the best chance to finish Trajans work. Southern Mesopotamia was most propably still loyal, also the parthian client king in Mid-Mesopotamia, who was waiting desperately for legions and Hadrians best legate was fighting against the revolts in northern Mesopotamia, when Hadrian decided to go back behind the Euphrat. But logistics from Syria via the syrian desert to Mesopotamia was difficult and costly. The border along the Zhagros Mountains to Media was long, very long. And the people in Mesopotamia were resistant. And of course, the parthian rest-empire with the rich provinces of Media, Persis, Parthia and more, was able to start a huge counterattack. At least after solving the internal issues. Which could happen much faster, if legions of the common enemy are in Mesopotamia.

PS: I am eager, how you and Antonius will deal with the conquered parthian empire in your alternate timeline. I hope to read more soon.
 
Last edited:
I agree with Agricola.

Now, if you'll let me go on a tangent here (you all can please ignore me if I'm being presumptuous): what if Julius Caesar had gone on with his planned campaigns in Illyricum and along the Danube, instead of being distracted by the Suebi and conquering Gaul, as in OTL? A POD of Ariovistus leading the Suebi to Normandy instead of down to the Rhone, or the Suebi simply not moving, could accomplish this.

Now Rome has a lot more "weight" and focus on the East (Illyricum and the Balkans up to the Danube) instead of West (all that land that Caesar conquered); will it be easier to govern and administer the East (even if Persia is conquered), or does this create so many butterflies that the governance of the Roman state (whether Republican or Imperial) becomes unmanageable?

Assuming nothing changes except for that Gaul is exchanged for "Danubia", will an Emperor shift the capital to the East much sooner than Constantine did? I for one can't see this happening so soon after the Republic's existence. The focus of the Roman state at the time was still very much on Rome.

I understand that you ask, what if Caesar will not conquer Gallia, because Ariovist does not give him the reason he needs by constitution to do so. But he finds a reason to invade Illyria, which was actually a big threat these times. No real difference for Caesar imho, because all he needs is glory, more legions and money/loot.

Well, exactly this happened under Augustus reign. Illyria was conquered. The story was even pretty similar. First the unstoppable romans conquered Dalmatia, Pannonia and Moesia and 6 AD Tiberius had his illyrian Alesia. Perhaps Caesar would have conquered Dacia sooner.

But I don't see how this makes a huge difference about Persia or Constantinople becoming capital earlier.
 
Last edited:
Whenever I see things such as "Byzantines Conquer Persia" and "Nestorian Persia" they are to me at least Immediatly dismiss able as ASB. There in it seems to be a great amount of under rating of the Sassanid Empire and of the Zoroastrian clergy.
 

katchen

Banned
Sly, do you know, that Trajan never really provincialized Mesopotamia?

He invaded Mesopotamia coming over Armenia and Media Adiabadene. Same route probably Julius Caesar planned and Antonius did in your TTL. It is unclear, if Media Adiabadene, which is the smaller western part of Media was ever the province Assyria you see in some maps. This province is just mentioned once in an unreliable source of the 6th century iirc. Perhaps it was a client-kingdom for a few years.

Trajan was the only roman empror who ever saw the persian gulf, thats right. But Charakene, which is the utter south part of Mesopotamia was a parthian client kingdom controlling the trade with India. And Trajan saw no reason to change the status of this king. So southern Mesopotamia became a roman client-kingdom.

Central Mesopotamia, which is the Ctesiphon area, was conquered, but then Trajan established a client-king, a member of the parthian royal family. However, this guy had no chance to hold his throne, without roman legions.

Northern Mesopotamia was not fully conquered. The romans never conquered Hatra which controls the southern part of North-Mesopotamia. The other cities just started a revolt, when Trajan was on his way back to Rome and died in Minor Asia. Perhaps the often mentioned province of Mesopotamia was exactly this: a part of northern Mesopotamia. Like the small province Mesopotamia of the late empire after Diocletian.

At this point of time, Armenia was already reconquered by the parthians partially and the romans had to agree to an unfavorable peace treaty. So all maps you can find about Mesopotamia in Trajans time are wrong.

Trajans campaign was a desaster, especially financially. I agree, that it was a desaster for the Asarkids, too. But I am not convinced, that the romans were able to control even Mesopotamia up to the persian gulf.

Hadrian rejected to do it, even if he had the best chance to finish Trajans work. Southern Mesopotamia was most propably still loyal, also the parthian client king in Mid-Mesopotamia, who was waiting desperately for legions and Hadrians best legate was fighting against the revolts in northern Mesopotamia, when Hadrian decided to go back behind the Euphrat. But logistics from Syria via the syrian desert to Mesopotamia was difficult and costly. The border along the Zhagros Mountains to Media was long, very long. And the people in Mesopotamia were resistant. And of course, the parthian rest-empire with the rich provinces of Media, Persis, Parthia and more, was able to start a huge counterattack. At least after solving the internal issues. Which could happen much faster, if legions of the common enemy are in Mesopotamia.

PS: I am eager, how you and Antonius will deal with the conquered parthian empire in your alternate timeline. I hope to read more soon.
So am I.
Because never mind Persian usurpations which take time to organize; Rome will need to hold the conquered Parthian Empire against the Yuezhi Kushans, who are strong enough and well organized enough to take and hold Bactria, Sogdiana and much of India IOTL around this time. The Kushans could easily be a logistically challenged Rome's biggest nightmare--simply because they are organized around light AND heavy cavalry and can fire arrows accurately from the saddle while travelling at full gallop. They can generate cavalry in the hundreds of thousands if need be. And if they wish to outflank Rome's eastern armies and chokepoints on the Bosporus and move on Rome itself, they are capable of conquering or making allies of the Massagetae, the Sakae (Scythians), the Goturks and the Sarmatians of the Northern Steppes. Only the Hsiung-Nu and the Han Chinese can stand against them.
And the Kushans have already dealt with Zoroastrianism by incorporating Zoroastrianism into their syncretic form of Buddhism. Bactria used to be Zoroastrian too. In fact Bactria (Balkh) is where Zoroaster lived and taught.
 
it bears questioning why the unholy power of the kushans never conquered persia if they could march to the bosporus
 
I understand that you ask, what if Caesar will not conquer Gallia, because Ariovist does not give him the reason he needs by constitution to do so. But he finds a reason to invade Illyria, which was actually a big threat these times. No real difference for Caesar imho, because all he needs is glory, more legions and money/loot.

Well, exactly this happened under Augustus reign. Illyria was conquered. The story was even pretty similar. First the unstoppable romans conquered Dalmatia, Pannonia and Moesia and 6 AD Tiberius had his illyrian Alesia. Perhaps Caesar would have conquered Dacia sooner.

But I don't see how this makes a huge difference about Persia or Constantinople becoming capital earlier.

Well if there is Caesar's focus on Illyria and Moesia, trade and development will begin around there much earlier, and the absence of threatening barbarians means that Asia province and Greece will become much richer in the process; from Rome's conquest of Macedonia to Augustus's conquest of Illyria, a nonstop border war was fought on the border there. Without this threat and drain on resources, development can begin.

After Illyria and then Rome's possible hurdles with Caesar and dictators and imperium, etc., the very broad and fertile Pannonian plain will beckon much more invitingly to prospectors than Gaul; that could be the next direction of invasion. Nice broad fat juicy fertile land like Pannonia to settle the legions on, and plenty of it, would call to any emperor wanting loyal veterans.

Even if Pannonia is not "next", the development of Greece and peace on that front means that more legions are available in the East; with no land in Gaul and no long Rhine border to protect, less legions are needed to guard the Province and the Pyrenees.
 
But Gaul would be the next logical target for any ambitious figure in the future, republican senator or emperor. It's the next logical conclusion for any roman looking to attain military fame and glory. If Caesar ignores it, someone else will fall on it in time. Though its no guarantee the Romans would succeed.
 
it bears questioning why the unholy power of the kushans never conquered persia if they could march to the bosporus

Unfortunately I found not that much information about the battles of the parthians or the sassanids at their northern border. Fact is, they had a lot of trouble in the north and this forced them more than once to agree to peace treaties with the romans.

The north of the parthian/persian empire which is Sogdiana, Bactria, Margiana, Aria, Arachosia and Drangiana were overrun more than once by mid-asian steppe tribes. Their kingdoms even reached as far south as the Indus-Delta. However, I never read, that they invaded the rich core-lands of the empire, which are Media, Persis, Susiana and Mesopotamia.

It seems, that the two big persian deserts on the central iranian plateau were a good border and buffer. The feasible route for a big army, even if resistant steppe tribes, seems to be coming from Bactria or the mid-asian steppes via Parthia to Media or coming from the Indus via Gedrosia and Carmania to Persis.

The route thru Gedrosia is very dangerous, because deserted, too. Alexander already lost a lot of people on his way back from the Indus. What would have happened, if his half-dead soldiers would have faced an hostile Army in Carmania and not a friendly satrap bringing water and food?

Also the way thru Parthia to Media was not a cakewalk. In this mountainous and forested area a big army had to pass strong geographical bottlenecks and the landscape is not favorable for pure cavalry armies. Of course the parthians themselves did it, but obiously Parthia and Media were not well defended in the 3rd century BC.

Especially the Sassanids established additional fortifications in order to block the most dangerous invasion routes. Look at the big wall from the eastern shores of the Caspian sea to the iranian mountains. Pretty similiar to the Hadrian wall, but much bigger. Actually the 2nd biggest building of mankind after the chinese wall.

No, I am not convinced about the asian threat. They will raid a lot, but it is not very likely that a huge army make its way to the persian core lands if properly defended.

Of course you can say, that the mongols did it. But well, these were the mongols. ;)
 
Last edited:
Even if Pannonia is not "next", the development of Greece and peace on that front means that more legions are available in the East; with no land in Gaul and no long Rhine border to protect, less legions are needed to guard the Province and the Pyrenees.

This is a very interesting idea. Actually I have read some very interesting discussions, how a shorter border for the roman empire in the 4th/5th century could have looked like. One proposal is the "Fortress Alpes" which is the natural border of Italy anyways.

In such a scenario the romans give up Gallia, Germania and Britannia or like in the case above, they never invade it at all. They have to secure the Pyreneans, Narbonensis and the Alpes. It seems, that the Alpes were not that well fortified, because the roman fortifications were more north at the Danube. So the Allemanns could raid northern Italy easily. But what if the northern Alpes are well fortified and defended? Like the eastern Alpes were a huge fortress before destroyed in the desastrous war of Theodosius against the West. The same counts for the passes thru the Pyreneans.

Well. Gallia Narbonensis is in danger, and needs a huge army to defend it. Because if Narbonensis falls, the border becomes not shorter but longer. Now the barbarians have access to the mediterrenean sea and piracy becomes a huge problem. Another interesting "short" border for the 5th century is Gibraltar and the Alpes, giving up entire Gallia and Hispania. But now the romans need a huge and clearly superior fleet in the western mediterenenan sea, which did not exist at this point of time.

However, without Gallia, Germania, Britannia and parts of Raetia and Noricum the romans would save about 9 legions plus the biggest auxilia contingents of the empire. Some of them would be needed to defend the Pyreneans, Narbonensis and the Alpes, but at the end of the day, we should see a reinforcement of the roman borders everywhere.

But, if they waste this advantage by conquering the East, I doubt, that will be beneficial longterm. They better stay behind their now shorter and better defended borders and work on their fundamental internal issues.

And don't forget the huge economical effect of such a shorter border:
- no Britannia and Germania means two provinces less to subsidize over centuries.
- legions in Italia means a huge postive impact on the italian economy. The money stays in Italy and goes not to other border provinces far away.
- no Gallia means less desastrous globalization effects on the italian economy. Economically Gallia became something like the "roman China" after conquest.

The dramatic economic change of the italian economy starting in the 1st century AD would perhaps never happen.
 
Last edited:
But Gaul would be the next logical target for any ambitious figure in the future, republican senator or emperor. It's the next logical conclusion for any roman looking to attain military fame and glory. If Caesar ignores it, someone else will fall on it in time. Though its no guarantee the Romans would succeed.

I agree, Gallia is the carrot in front of every ambitious general. But what if history works like in OTL? Just Caesar invades Illyria and perhaps Dacia instead of Gallia, and afterwards we see the same civil war.

Do you believe an emperor like Augustus will invade Gallia? I doubt about that.
Perhaps some decades or a century later an emperor will do so, but it is not guaranteed that Rome succeeds in Gallia again, without a genious and sometimes very lucky general like Julius Caesar. Furthermore, every peaceful decade in the neighbourhood of the roman empire makes a culture stronger. Exactly this happend to Germania and would happen to the already strong Gallia, too. But who knows.
 
Last edited:
Not only is 'oriental kingdom' a term which should be immediately disposed of if discussion should continue, but the Sassanids were an entirely different, far more competent beast than the Parthians. A client-king would stir the hive in a way the Romans would not be able to contemplate and he would be dead within a few years due to 'natural' causes.
Sassanid mafia? :p

Whenever I see things such as "Byzantines Conquer Persia" and "Nestorian Persia" they are to me at least Immediatly dismiss able as ASB. There in it seems to be a great amount of under rating of the Sassanid Empire and of the Zoroastrian clergy.
But aren't you the one who thinks a Turkic invasion of the Sassanid empire is as easy as pie? :p
 
I agree, Gallia is the carrot in front of every ambitious general. But what if history works like in OTL? Just Caesar invades Illyria and perhaps Dacia instead of Gallia, and afterwards we see the same civil war.

Do you believe an emperor like Augustus will invade Gallia? I doubt about that.
Perhaps some decades or a century later an emperor will do so, but it is not guaranteed that Rome succeeds in Gallia again, without a genious and sometimes very lucky general like Julius Caesar. Furthermore, every peaceful decade in the neighbourhood of the roman empire makes a culture stronger. Exactly this happend to Germania and would happen to the already strong Gallia, too. But who knows.

Augustus would almost certainly do it. Remember, he had great interest in expanding into Germany and Britain. Anything that makes Italy safer is going to be a priority of an emperor like him. That includes Gaul.
 
Top