The only chance to control the East is provincialize it up to Media and Persis. And this is perhaps an even bigger challenge. At least no roman emperor ever tried it.
Could a long-lived Julian have tried it and succeded?
The only chance to control the East is provincialize it up to Media and Persis. And this is perhaps an even bigger challenge. At least no roman emperor ever tried it.
Could a long-lived Julian have tried it and succeded?
Could a long-lived Julian have tried it and succeded?
That said, the empire I think, could manage holding Mesopotamia if they were to make serious investments into holding it.
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.
So am I.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.
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.
it bears questioning why the unholy power of the kushans never conquered persia if they could march to the bosporus
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.
Sassanid mafia?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.
But aren't you the one who thinks a Turkic invasion of the Sassanid empire is as easy as pie?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.
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.