What if the valerian complety deastroyed the Persians at edessa

What if valerian completely destroyed the Persian army at edessa at the cost of less then 1000 troops resulting in one of greatest Roman victory ever and one of the worst Persian defeats ever and captured shapur. What does he do with the king of kings? How does he go about his eastern campaign? How this affect the 3rd century crises? Can his family maintain its rule with such a great victory?
 
How completely is completely, really? He'd keep the king as a prisoner, obviously, but the Persians would crown another one and remain a problem. How much of a problem will depend on Roman policy and luck, given the potential for territorial concessions, playing off factions, and turning client kings. I can't see the Sassanid empire just falling apart, but it could certainly be much diminished.

Beyond that, there is still a lot of repair work to be done. The mid-third century was a volatile time and Roman superiority not to be taken for granted. Valerian was not a soldiers' emperor. Any reverse could count against him. If he survives the critical years after Edessa, though, he has a good chance of securing an untroubled succession for Gallienus, who would probably be remembered very differently.

Whether he, in turn, can secure the imperial centre and break the cycle of acclamation and civil war remains open. I don't think so, but then, Diocletian did, so it's not impossible. Given the state of our sources, it is hard to get an good idea of his real character. Seems to have bneen tough and not scared easily, which helps.
 
We must also take into account that after the battle, the military presence of the Roman Empire in the east was shattered to pieces do to most of the army deserting or being captured by the Persians. If the Persian army was shattered like the Roman army was at the time, it would lead to no Persian insurgences against Roman East for a long while and would somewhat stabalize that front for atleast a decade or two, and that is what the Empire needs at the moment. Some years of peace and no internal turmoil like the one that followed after the defeat at Edessa
 
I think Nisibis also shows the exact willpower of the Romans to press into Sasanian/Iranian territory, which is to say nil. They wanted a buffer zone and that's about it.

All you're going to do with this victory is kick the can down the line, since the Romans lack the resources and the willpower to crush the Sasanians.

Also it seems plausible that Valerian was captured during surrender negotiations rather than in a pitched battle, as some accounts say. If this is correct, then it would be difficult to get Shapur to be captured in the same manner. If Shapur was captured during fighting, it's unlikely in that case that the entire Persian army would be defeated to the same degree.
 
I think Nisibis also shows the exact willpower of the Romans to press into Sasanian/Iranian territory, which is to say nil. They wanted a buffer zone and that's about it.

All you're going to do with this victory is kick the can down the line, since the Romans lack the resources and the willpower to crush the Sasanians.

Also it seems plausible that Valerian was captured during surrender negotiations rather than in a pitched battle, as some accounts say. If this is correct, then it would be difficult to get Shapur to be captured in the same manner. If Shapur was captured during fighting, it's unlikely in that case that the entire Persian army would be defeated to the same degree.

While unlikely I say shapur got captured in this scenario in pitched battle with only a few hundred men Persians suriving with most of them injured and all captured.
 
We must also take into account that after the battle, the military presence of the Roman Empire in the east was shattered to pieces do to most of the army deserting or being captured by the Persians. If the Persian army was shattered like the Roman army was at the time, it would lead to no Persian insurgences against Roman East for a long while and would somewhat stabalize that front for atleast a decade or two, and that is what the Empire needs at the moment. Some years of peace and no internal turmoil like the one that followed after the defeat at Edessa

So no palmaryan empire at least.
 

Hecatee

Donor
well a defeat of the magnitude described here (king Shapur fallen or captured, most of his army killed or captured) would have effects in two directions :

- Shapur is fallen : what of the succession ? His dynasty was young and he had 4 sons who could fight for the throne if they survived the battle; what of all the young nobles suddenly deprieved from the experience of their fallen elders, including ambitious ones that might have been raised in hate of the Arsacid dynasty and may be willing to revolt, especially if they expect the Romans to keep out of the kingdom as they did earlier in similar circumstances. Peace might well be signed by the heir at a rather low cost (giving back all captured lands and cities, giving some gold) to go back home fight rebellions
- Shapur is captive : similar to above, but with much more gold to Rome for the ransom, then Shapur is too busy re-instating his power against rebels and a population made angry by increased taxes raised to build a new army and pay the ransom

For Rome :

- Influx of gold, of a size depending on wheter Shapur is alive or not, much of which will be spent trying to rebuild Syria and the retaken cities
- Great military prestige and stabilization of the East, with maybe some operations either in Arabia or even Egypt (lots of issues to be solved there at the time) and, more importantly, troops that might be used to hold Palmyra down and others that may be sent back toward the Danube to reinforce it (most eastern campaigns pooled troops from Danube to operations on the Syrian border)
- Maybe some leftover gold for investments in the west
- Due to less of a crisis, possibility for some internal reorganization. Beside that the arrival of troops on the Danube may solidify this front's fiability for the regime thanks to soldiers in love with the emperor coming to give news of his qualities while showing the local forces that they are not abandonned

Overall, a boost in stability for all the roman realm while the Sassanids will have at least one, if not two decades of troubles, allowing Rome to spend 20 more years fixed on the West
 
well a defeat of the magnitude described here (king Shapur fallen or captured, most of his army killed or captured) would have effects in two directions :

- Shapur is fallen : what of the succession ? His dynasty was young and he had 4 sons who could fight for the throne if they survived the battle; what of all the young nobles suddenly deprieved from the experience of their fallen elders, including ambitious ones that might have been raised in hate of the Arsacid dynasty and may be willing to revolt, especially if they expect the Romans to keep out of the kingdom as they did earlier in similar circumstances. Peace might well be signed by the heir at a rather low cost (giving back all captured lands and cities, giving some gold) to go back home fight rebellions
- Shapur is captive : similar to above, but with much more gold to Rome for the ransom, then Shapur is too busy re-instating his power against rebels and a population made angry by increased taxes raised to build a new army and pay the ransom

For Rome :

- Influx of gold, of a size depending on wheter Shapur is alive or not, much of which will be spent trying to rebuild Syria and the retaken cities
- Great military prestige and stabilization of the East, with maybe some operations either in Arabia or even Egypt (lots of issues to be solved there at the time) and, more importantly, troops that might be used to hold Palmyra down and others that may be sent back toward the Danube to reinforce it (most eastern campaigns pooled troops from Danube to operations on the Syrian border)
- Maybe some leftover gold for investments in the west
- Due to less of a crisis, possibility for some internal reorganization. Beside that the arrival of troops on the Danube may solidify this front's fiability for the regime thanks to soldiers in love with the emperor coming to give news of his qualities while showing the local forces that they are not abandonned

Overall, a boost in stability for all the roman realm while the Sassanids will have at least one, if not two decades of troubles, allowing Rome to spend 20 more years fixed on the West
So possible early end to the crisis nice. Also what problems where in Egypt?
 

Hecatee

Donor
The third century sees the begining of monachism, especialy of the eremitist form, in Egypt, in large part due to oppressive tax rates and to christian persecutions, and some low level not too violent insurectionism which is made easier by some usurpation attempts by Mussius Aemilianus or, more successfully, by Probus. There were also the Blemmyes' attacks on the south of the province that needed military action, especially given the importance of Egyptian grain
 
The third century sees the begining of monachism, especialy of the eremitist form, in Egypt, in large part due to oppressive tax rates and to christian persecutions, and some low level not too violent insurectionism which is made easier by some usurpation attempts by Mussius Aemilianus or, more successfully, by Probus. There were also the Blemmyes' attacks on the south of the province that needed military action, especially given the importance of Egyptian grain

That's interesting to know. With army in the east valerian can probably put down anything resembling an incursion
 
So if valerians goal in the east was to restablish the boarder what does he do with his army after his eastern campaign. Also would the gaelic empire still form?
 
Top