Why didn't Romans repeat Alexander's invasion of India?

[Admiral Beez]

Macedonia demonstrated that there were riches and conquests to be made into India.

Instead the Romans grew along coasts and/or northward into colder and damp climes.

What changed from Alexander's invasion of India in 326 BC to Caesar's climax four hundred years later in 117 AD/CE?

Did the Romans consider Alexander's move far eastward to be folly, much as his troops did?

 

[Trotsky]

Looking at that second map - I had no idea Roman influence/control made it to the Persian Gulf. I was under the impression Parthia held them to the west of the Tigris-Euphrates.

 

[Ziemniak]

Well, the most obvious answer is that the Parthians are in the way. They're going to have to spend a few decades chewing through that before an invasion of India would be feasible.

 

[DominusNovus]

Looking at that second map - I had no idea Roman influence/control made it to the Persian Gulf. I was under the impression Parthia held them to the west of the Tigris-Euphrates.

That was the height of Trajan's conquests. Only briefly held.

As for why, there's a variety of reasons. One of which is certainly: All that glory and wealth got Macedonia exactly what, in the end?

 

[zeppelinair]

Well, the most obvious answer is that the Parthians are in the way. They're going to have to spend a few decades chewing through that before an invasion of India would be feasible.

Was there ever a time when the Parthians were especially weak, perhaps?

 

[Lalli]

It is logistically very difficult to conquer Rome. And Rome controlled Mesopotamia just short time. Parthia too was still problem. Even Alexander failed so surely Romans too. And Romans hadn't even any reason go to India.

 

[tenthring]

Lots of people can win a few battles and conquer and area, but can they hold it?

Alexander's empire fell apart at his death, and it had going for it the entire stable Persian infrastructure and bureaucracy to take over. Even if the Romans beat the Parthians there was less of a centralized system to take over from them.

In the long run you can only hold areas that your society is set up to hold. Rome was build on the Legion, i.e. heavy infantry. That's fine in Europe, and the Levant and Egypt are naturally connected to the Mediterranean, but its just not going to fly in the middle east in the long run.

That's cavalry territory, there is a reason that a new group of horse people were constantly running through there and taking over periodically. The Parthians were one of a long list. Beat them and a new one will come. Meanwhile your running around the desert with an army completely not designed for that kind of terrain, and you can't just import your logistics via ship as you can in the rest of the Mediterranean.

Hadrian was smart to write off the entire affair. Rome would never hold the middle east. The three great civilizational centers (and the two great barbarian centers) existed for obvious and immutable geographic and climate reasons.

 

[DominusNovus]

Look at the logistics, as well. Alexander needed his capital in Mesopotamia.

 

[LSCatilina]

Macedonia demonstrated that there were riches and conquests to be made into India.

Actually, India was the reason Alexander's conquest meet an end in this region, having met too much resistance with his troops having trouble dealing with Indus' kingdoms, and the Nanda Empire (from Himalaya foothills to Great Rann) was much more powerful, as was Gandhara.

If something was demonstrated, it's that Macedonians couldn't take India without any campaign being a huge bet; and that they eventually let Indus' kings in place without garrison.

Don't get me wrong, it had important consequences on connecting Eastern Mediterranean to India, but for what matter Macedonians and Indians, it was more or less a gigantic raid.

Instead the Romans grew along coasts and/or northward into colder and damp climes.

Remember that they were climatic changes, though. Mediteranean climates went much northern than nowadays, and were fit for roman agriculture.
Eventually Roman conquest, because they were the result of several campaigns with many different reasons, at the contrary of the more or less meteoritical Alexandrine conquest doesn't have a same geopolitical motive.

From the more or less existential threat that Carthage was, that lead to the conquest of Mediterranean island, to the politically (inner politics) motivated conquest of Gaul...I don't think we can't say there was one motivation or clear land-grabbing grand strategy.

What changed from Alexander's invasion of India in 326 BC to Caesar's climax four hundred years later in 117 AD/CE?

Persians getting in the way, mostly.

Alexander managed to get the Achemenid Empire down (sort of, he eventually had to adopt a lot of Persian features and structures, would it be only to keep his empire running).

Not that Achemenid Empire was significantly weaker than its later counterparts, but I think that the proximity of Alexander's bases, the lack of other pressures (he dealt with that before going in Asia) and tactical superiority played a role.

Romans being more stretched out, they didn't beneficied from same assets : Trajan (as other emperors) managed to get up to Mesopotamia and take the capital (the vassalic nature of Parthians and Sassanian Empire helped there, as the loss of the core region didn't implied collapse of the empire) but never to hold it (by 117, Mesopotamia was abandoned to itself, turned in an hopeless client kingdom).

Did the Romans consider Alexander's move far eastward to be folly, much as his troops did?

Alexander was mostly seen positively, and his campaigns in India were mythical. Which may be the problem : Plutarque was quite expensive about India's wealth, wonders (up to military ressources)...
It's was less about "let's get these wealths" than "There's, far far away from there, a land ridden with gold".

While you had exchanges of embassies between Romans and Indians rulers (during Augustus' reign for exemple), nothing really came out of it : it was too far to draw alliance with or make war.

 

[M. Adolphe Thiers]

Was there ever a time when the Parthians were especially weak, perhaps?

Not really. Rome/Byzantium spent 700 years warring with them and the Sassanids that replaced them. If Rome spent all of its military power on a Parthian campaign, they might conquer Persia. Hence the general reluctance to go further than influence Armenia. Rome knew in advance that Persia would be a pit for resources to deal with for occupation, so conquest was never a serious option. Trajan's conquests were rather bold.

 

[Admiral Beez]

Look at the logistics, as well. Alexander needed his capital in Mesopotamia.

I thought the Romans were the logistical experts of the pre-industrial age. Unlike Alexander, the Romans had horse drawn covered carts to cover long distances. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_roads#Vehicles_and_transportation

Just look at their extensive road network below, enabling troops and materials to move quickly.

They also had an effective communication system, allowing messages from Rome to reach Egypt, for example, in about sixty days. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cursus_publicus A message could presumably reach Mesopotania in about 90 days.

Was an alliance with the Partians possible, enabling a Roman move eastward?

If needed the Romans had armoured calvary like everyone else https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_cavalry

 

[SlyDessertFox]

Yes, but things were made much simpler for the Romans that their empire encircled the Mediterranean. That simplifies a lot of logistical problems, that, say, a land empire like the Persians had. There's also the fact that it's simply not worth the effort. The cost in conquering, holding, managing, feeding, etc. etc. that area would far outweigh any benefits. Parthia was a weak enemy that Rome could easily manage, and trade with the east was not disrupted.


About the only thing that would be worthwhile to the Romans would be Mesopotamia and access to the Persian gulf. That at least gets rid of the Parthian middlemen.

 

[kasumigenx]

I think the Byzantines could do that.

 

[Sian]

Do note that even if Alexander hadn't died at an early age, his empire was horribly overextended, and while he might have been able to hold it together as long as he kept winning, it would have crumbled the first time anyone got a hint of a clue that he wasn't up to it, and really i can't see it surviving his death even if he had a crystal clear heir that was just as competent, as just about everyone would test that heir out at the same time, leaving him with half a continent of whack-a-mole, and more rebellions than anyone would care to count.

 

[GdwnsnHo]

The obvious answer is that there was an unconquered Persia in the way, but that shouldn't (in theory) be insurmountable.

If Rome can perform any actions to boost stability, then Persia isn't an impossible conquest - but to conquer Persia, you'd want Arabia at least on side to help you out and harass Persia. That'd require significant diplomatic overtures, or an outright conquest (with all its own difficulties).

Though, I saw an interesting timeline that saw Hadrian take a different approach to consolidation - rather than surrendering territory, he pushed to better frontiers (when known). This would be a plausible way IMO to precede an invasion of Persia - and then India.

Now the big questions will be "How do the Romans govern the WRE, ERE, Persia AND India (and potentially Arabia?)" - That'd have to be a question the Romans would have to overcome, and I'd throw the idea of an Imperial College into the ring - multiple mutual Emperors of the Empire - each with priority in their jurisdictions, and maybe some sort of Senior Emperor.

So that question would need to be solved by the time Persia could be consolidated. With a successful system, and the resources of the East Med being freed of defending against Persia, and the armies of Persia freed from defending against Rome - then you have one impressive invasion force for an invasion of India - and considering India's wealth, that is motivation enough for the Romans, that or an insult to Romes honour that could be an excuse.

Elephants could be a problem if the Romans don't remember how to fight them, but as long as they can get themselves logistically supplied - they could at least conquer the mouth of the Indus - and that can be the basis of an invasion of Gaul writ large!

 

[Tanc49]

From my understanding of history, they conquered the easy stuff first, where they had a big tactical advantage through the organisation of legions. The issue is that once they conquered everything that was conquerable and valuable, they didn't have enough strength to extend more.

Once they reached the Danube, Rhine and Sahara, they had to defend those and keep internal peace which took a lot of effort, too much to do such a big campaign.
Could be interesting to see something about the Roman Empire vassalasing completely the Persian Empire though

 

[carlton_bach]

The Romans never had a plan for Empire. They didn't know they were going to conquer this and leave that, they acquired territory as political situations warranted, sometimes for no visible reason at all. That alone may account for the fact that they did not try to go to India - the will and resources required would not have been mustered in the absence of a master plan. Master plans are not the Roman style.

Individual emperors seem to have considered pulling an Alexander, though. That didn't work due to the Parthians and Sassanids being in the way, of course. But again, their plans were usually shelved after the first serious reverse, so it's hard to tell how far they could have gotten if their successors had kept trying.

 

[yourworstnightmare]

I thought the Romans were the logistical experts of the pre-industrial age. Unlike Alexander, the Romans had horse drawn covered carts to cover long distances. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_roads#Vehicles_and_transportation

Just look at their extensive road network below, enabling troops and materials to move quickly.

They also had an effective communication system, allowing messages from Rome to reach Egypt, for example, in about sixty days. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cursus_publicus A message could presumably reach Mesopotania in about 90 days.

Was an alliance with the Partians possible, enabling a Roman move eastward?

If needed the Romans had armoured calvary like everyone else https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_cavalry

Still they in the end needed two capitals to administer their realm. Basically stretching further eastwards would not be possible foir an empire efficiently ruled from Italy.

 

[jahenders]

In short:
- The Parthians and others were in the way and were trouble enough without trying to destroy it utterly enough to pass through it
- Alexander's invasion of India was a net loss for him and his empire -- little reason for Rome to repeat
- Rome was centered/focused in the Central Med and had plenty of challenges and opportunities there. Among other things, the flow of trade (and grain imports) was vital to the Roman economy and imperial coffers.
- Establishing/maintaining/defending adequate supply lines all the way to India would have been a huge task

If anything, attempted Roman efforts in India make more sense to be done by the Eastern Roman Empire once the West and East have split. But they had the Sassanids in the way and then had the Muslims to deal with.

 

[Napoléon Caesar Augustus]

That was the height of Trajan's conquests. Only briefly held.

As for why, there's a variety of reasons. One of which is certainly: All that glory and wealth got Macedonia exactly what, in the end?

Eternal glory and fame for its ruler?