What if the Roman's conquered Iraq

They needed an Alexander. Someone gifted, crazy and brave. Roman Emperors usually had 2 of these gifts but never all 3. An Alexander with a Roman army and supply train could have taken put Persia.

Trajan is probably the only one capable of being Alexander, the only issue being how old he was when he came to power.
 
At the risk of wandering slightly OT, it's curious that the Ottoman Empire was able to hold Iraq from the 1500s to WW1.

Any thoughts on why they did better than the Romans? Were they stronger, or had the Mongol and Timurid invasions left Persia relatively weaker than in the Classical Age? Or did the bond of a common religion make it easier for the Turks to gain local support?

The main reason for this was both the antagonization of the Sunni population of Northern Iraq which caused them to more easily accept the Turks and the decline of the Safavids. One must remember that we are not looking at Persia as a person, rather a nation. Its choices and power depend on those of the king. After Shah Abbas the Great most of the Safavid kings were idiots or lunatics and it stopped any sort of reconquest of Mesopotamia. Furthermore, the appearance of Russia in Central Asia and the Caucasus distracted Persian resources from the area of Mesopotamia.

In the end both the incompetence of the leaders and their intolerance of Sunni populations caused their demise since the last Safavid King was overthrown when the Afghan Sunnis revolted, violently. Had Shah Abbas not instituted such systems of forced conversion perhaps the Afghans and Baluchis would have been more content with Persian rule.

The decline of the Persian Gulf as an important trading nexus also contributed to their decline. The 18th and 19th centuries did not do well for the Persian economy which fell sorely behind those of its neighbors such as the Ottomans or the Russians. Not until Reza was able to break the control over his oil wells by foreign companies and nationalize his oil did the Persian Gulf once again become important.
 
Yes, but more importantly, would his successors be able to keep it?

That's a difficult thing to answer. Persia would be the hardest region by far to keep happy and they would never accept Romanization. The revolts from the region could be hellish and as soon as we get an Elagabalus we'll get an Ardashir wannabe attempting to free Persia. At the same time without Persia the Empire can really relax its Eastern frontier, place a few legions in the Caucasus and Khurasan, and then begin relocating them to places where they would be more useful.

And then they realize that having only three legions in Persia was a bad idea and need something like 6 to hold it down.
 
Last edited:

Prefrence

Banned
Didn't the Romans use rivers as defensive barriers? Could the Tigris become another Rhine and have a few legions stationed on it?
 
Persia's territory is very good for defense, but it was conquered by the Arabs. I wonder how they did it, and whether the Romans could copy their way.
 
Persia's territory is very good for defense, but it was conquered by the Arabs. I wonder how they did it, and whether the Romans could copy their way.

Two factors, one temporary, one more permanent.

Firstly, Persia, like Rome, was exhausted by the decades of war between them.

Second, many of the Arabs were nomadic, so not as dependent on supply lines as the army of a sedentary culture. This gave them the same advantage as Huns, Mongols etc, and enabled them to range far greater distances than your average army.
 
Persia's territory is very good for defense, but it was conquered by the Arabs. I wonder how they did it, and whether the Romans could copy their way.

That's only because the Sassanids rejected a proposal of peace. The Muslims did not intend on conquering all of Persia. Look at the Persian Peace by Impi.
 
Seleucid Option

Another possibility is that the Romans treated the Seleucid Empire better during the period of 134 BC. You know, say, 'hey, we are not your best friends, but we would like a stable border buffer state with you' and wait till they need more help, at a price. Eventually, like Anatolia, Roman would eventually inherit, when the time was ripe, more like happened in OTL Egypt. The constant threat of the Parthnians would help ensure a grateful population, with occasional bloody pillages to enforce the point. Taxes should be low to further the support of the locals, as unlike Egypt this is no breadbasket for Rome (transportation alone would be a killer with lack of sea routes).

A telling quote confirms what I had read beforehand, that the Romans made a big mistake playing politics, as the Parthnians and their successors gave themselves and the later Byzantines no end of trouble.

The Islamic conquest was one of fierce religious intensity. One does not expect such from a large, old bureaucratic state, nor should one from a large, old corporation.

"and Roman intervention was an ever-present threat." Which goes to show they were trying to repeat the process that gained them Asia Minor Anatolia. Unfortunately, Israel and the Parthnians were eventual big trouble for that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seleucid_Empire#Collapse_.28100.E2.80.9363_BC.29
pppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp
Demetrius Nicator's brother, Antiochus VII Sidetes, took the throne after his brother's capture. He faced the titanic chore of restoring a rapidly crumbling empire; one facing threats on multiple fronts. Hard-won control of Coele-Syria was threatened by the Jewish Maccabee rebels. Once-vassal dynasties in Armenia, Cappadocia, and Pontus were threatening Syria and northern Mesopotamia; the nomadic Parthians, brilliantly led by Mithridates I of Parthia had overrun uppland Media (home of the famed Nisean horse herd); and Roman intervention was an ever-present threat.

Sidetes managed to bring the Maccadees to heal; frighten the Anatolian dynasts into a temporary submission; and then, in 133, turned east with the full might of the Royal Army (supported by a body of Jews under the Maccabee prince, John Hyrcanus) to drive back the Parthians.
Sidetes' campaign initially met with spectacular success, recapturing Mesopotamia, Babylonia and Media; defeating and slaying the Parthian Satrap of Seleucia-on-Tigris in personal combat. In the winter of 130/129 BC, his army was scattered in winter quarters throughout Media and Persis when the Parthian king, Phraates II, counter-attacked. Moving to intercept the Parthians with only the troops at his immediate disposal, he was ambushed and killed. Antiochus Sidetes is sometimes called the last great Seleucid king.

After the death of Antiochus VII Sidetes, all of the recovered eastern territories were recaptured by the Parthians. The Maccabees again rebelled, and civil war soon tore the empire to pieces. And the Armenians began to encroach on Syria from the north.
 
To Clarify

"with occasional bloody pillages to enforce the point."

Meaning that of the Parthnian breaking through Roman lines in raid or temporary invasions across the border front lines. The Mesopotamians would allow an occasional breech without blaming the Romans too much.
 

Ak-84

Banned
Didn't the Romans use rivers as defensive barriers? Could the Tigris become another Rhine and have a few legions stationed on it?

The Euphrates was infect the border and remained so for centuries. From Trajen onwards most of the Army was in the East and in Arabia.
 
Top