Then Alexander and his successor should invest in better roads through Afghanistan to prepare a future invasion of India.
Then Alexander and his successor should invest in better roads through Afghanistan to prepare a future invasion of India.
After Caesar that was true.
Because the Parthians had enough time (breathing space) to establish their firm control over their empire. And the degree of Hellenization of the former Seleucid Empire which the Parthians now owned slowly diminished and was substituted by the processes of Iranization.
And the Seleucid Empire was almost as strongly Hellenized as Anatolia, Egypt, Syria - exactly the places which were so easy for the Romans to hold because of the Hellenization.
And the Seleucid Empire had been ruled by the tiny Macedonian/Greek minority for almost two centuries; and that rule was easy to substitute by the Roman rule.
Well, that's true. But I don't think that the Romans thought in such terms. If they could conquer some territory and hold it, they did not bother that in two hundred years or so the Roman Empire would disintegrate because of overstretching. That's too long term strategy for them.
Short term in Julius Caesar time Rome could hold the conquered Seleucid/Parthian Empire for a hundred years or so, no problem.
Even in OTL the Roman Empire disintegrated into ERE and WRE; in ATL that might have happened way earlier.
Interesting idea for a new TL. But I am not sure, if this would accelarate the Fall of Rome or not. Depends on how these new empires split and if they are hostile to each other or not.
Ok, let's call that 'dehellenisation' for the lack of a better word. My point here that when the Parthians conquered the Seleucid Empire they styled themselves as a Hellenistic monarchy with all that it involved (and that was still true during Caesar's time). But soon most of the hellenistic features slowly evaporated and this entity became the Eastern Iranian Empire.I don't see much diminishment or a strong process of iranization before the Rise of the Sassanids.
First of all there is a strong analogy/parallel with what Caesar did in Gaul in OTL - he defeated Ariovistus who was the regional hegemon and after that the regional (Gaullish) hegemony belonged to Caesar.I see no strategic need to provincialize more than Mesopotamia and Armenia in a first step
... are the second step. They will be conquered by Caesar next after a brief rest. We should realise that Caesar did not make client kings in Gaul, that was not his style. He did not believe in client kings too much, I guess; his style was direct annexation and strike a terror into the hearts of the neighbours. And if the Parthian shahanshah is humiliated/dead everything which was his now belongs to Caesar, new hegemon, as simple as that.Media, Susiana and Persis are ...
There' a difference of a hundred years or so; that is a huge difference, that's just enough time to nourish local loyalties to the Parthian dynasty. During Caesar's time the Parthian Empire was in essence the Seleucid Empire just snatched by a Parthian bully, who was alien to the population. By the time of Severus the Parthian Empire was an old ancestral traditional patrimony of the Arshacids who owned the loyalties of the local elites and population.I agree, that a provincialization of Mesopotamia would have been easier than in Gaul. But I don't see that much of a difference between Caesars time and Severus' time regarding culture and administration.
Actually that's exactly what can be said about Gaul, conquered by Caesar - that was a huge self-sufficient kingdom with all the recources to be independent. And the legions on the Rhine border did make it an ideal place to usurp. In OTL if I am not mistaken every second Roman usurper was proclaimed in Gaul by the Rhine legions. Do you see any similarities? And what? Empire survived.A roman governor in Mesopotamia far from Rome, under permanent influence of these oriental aristocrats has a hard time to not usurp
Speaking of Caesar - "Trouble" is his second name. That's what his Gaullish conquest was about - one big fuc..ing trouble after another. And what? Gaul is conquered, pacified and provincialised.So Caesar would have trouble to hold Mesopotamia, no matter if he knows about overstretching or not. And even more trouble, if he tries to provincialice Media and Persis. Not mentioning all the former seleucidian provinces beyond the Zagros Mountains.
That's my dream - to make a TL "Bellum Parficum" - like Caesar takes the Seleucid Empire from the Parthians (instead of Gaul).Interesting idea for a new TL. But I am not sure, if this would accelarate the Fall of Rome or not. Depends on how these new empires split and if they are hostile to each other or not.
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.
Actually, I'm a bit surprised they didn't attempt to conquer India as the Romans DID import a steady supply of spices for the meals of the wealthy and TIGERS for the Collosseum from there! This way they could have had a direct pipeline without having to negotiate with all those troublesome territories in between.
Indus valley was quite remote for India at this point : while clearly more wealthy than most of Central Asia parts Alexander took,One thing I'm seeing a lot of is that "Alexander didn't conquer India", actually he did conquer all that was of importance- the Indus Valley.
Ganges : Nanda Empire, the clear predecessor of Maurya, was a thing since 20 years, and before Magadha Kingdom(s?) from which jainism and hinduism (that are considered as huge part of Indian civilisation markers) but as well buddhism originated.The Ganges and Deccan didn't matter back then, a bunch of petty kingdoms with no history of greatness
I'm afraid that's plainly wrong. You can check with Nanda Empire or Maghdan dynasties if you will : you'll see that unification trend was already ongoing, and that Indian didn't stagnated into oblivion before Greeks appeared.it was the inspiration of Alexander and the Greek culture that led to future unification and empires (Chandragupta and the Maurya Empire).
Nobody said it wasn't, but I think you're overestimating the importance of Indus in Indian classical civilisation.The Indus Valley (ie-Pakistan) IS A PART OF INDIA in all meanings except the modern Republic of India and in fact is the origin of India in culture, history,
Indian civilisation is less about languages, than about societal/cultural structures : jainism and hinduism, for exemple, didn't really get develloped along linguistical lines.and all other aspects (unless you're a Dravidian I suppose)
If we're basing ourselves on the Edicts of Ashoka's languages, it doesn't seems to be the case : if something the language of western edicts seems more archaising, more deeply influenced by sanskrit : Irano-Aramean is essentially present in regions that are nowadays Pasthun as the region of Kandahar (interestingly, these regions are as well where can be found edicts in Greek).. The difference between a Persian and Indian was less defined, Persia had a huge impact and strong presence in India (remember- Pakistan IS India!).
These operations, however, weren't military but commercial, implying widely different features. They could still attempt a Sealion-like military operation with trade ships, but that's going to turn comical quickly.By the time the Romans come to a point where they COULD send legions there (they had extensive naval operations in the Red Sea and Indian Ocean)
Again, if we go for Aksoha Edicts, most of it are mostly middle-Indian dialects with more or less elements of sanskrit (more important when you go for peripherical regions, around maghadi use).that the Indus Valley was no longer in the middle of the spectrum of Indo-Aryans, it was clearly Indian at that point
Mostly because it wasn't a conquest, but a military operation ending with burning up the city.The Romans controlled Aden briefly (not often shown on maps of the Roman Empire)
Giving how half-assed tentatives to do that IOTL, failed completly...you'd have to have Rome take Himyarite Kingdom (Yemen) and/or Ethiopia/Aksum.