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

Then Alexander and his successor should invest in better roads through Afghanistan to prepare a future invasion of India.

That's a possibility, but that would be ressource and time costly. Assuming the empire resist the test of time, which isn't a given as it was adressed by other peoples, easterns parts of the Empire would be still more or less neglected in favour of western parts (especially if Alexander's goes with his plans for Arabian coasts and other possible campaigns).

Admittedly, the development of Silk Road and transcontinental trade would be a good motivation (altough it would be less "investing in better roads" as if ancients empire were keynesian states, than undergoing public works which ask the question of supplying said workers in hostile regions), but its devellopment wouldn't really be a thing before another century.

Of course, we could always see an Helleno-Iranic Alexandrian successor state pulling a Meander, but that wasn't really put in question, but which is not what you had in mind, I guess.

Assuming it's still pulled, though (with all it implies handwaving costs and other geopolitical focuses), Maurya are still going to be a formidable empire and opponent, Bindusara gathering even more power than his father.

Arguably, having either Chandragupta or Bindusara going for Indus as they did IOTL (focring client king switching alliegance wasn't exactly unknown, and the lack of Alexandrine garrision in the region would only help them) could likely force the decision for Alexander or his successor...

While Maurya would have several advantaging factors, Alexander may hold for the Indus region border control (as you said, he wasn't exactly unskilled in military matters), but it would be costly enough to prevent really going further, IMO.
 
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.

The Asarcids always have been a small ruling class. They ruled the other tribes and their royals, which have been Babylonians, Assyrians, Medians, Persians and such. And of course greek cities and greek comunities in the native cities, as well as strong jewish communities. The greek cities and communities have always been strong. They often played a role in the usurpations in the parthian empire during the principate. I don't see much diminishment or a strong process of iranization before the Rise of the Sassanids.

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.

The roman administration model was easier to implement, if there was a city culture. Punic cities worked as good as greek cities. Actually the romans had more trouble with some of the more democratic greek cities. Direct democracies trend to unrest. A reason why the romans promoted the introduction of timocracies whenever possible.

So the assyrian or median cities are fully ok, in order to establish the roman way of government. And these cities are even more used to get ruled by autocracies then greek cities.

There have been more greek cities in Mesopotamia than elsewhere in the former Seleucid empire. Nevertheless the majority of the cities in Mesopotamia are non-greek. But that does'nt matter. As mentioned, non-greek cities work very well, and I see no strategic need to provincialize more than Mesopotamia and Armenia in a first step. Media, Susiana and Persis are better ruled by roman client kings, acting as a buffer against everybody crossing the iranian deserts.

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.

The main issue is to control all these aristocratic families in the area. The parthian empire saw more usurpations in one century than the entire roman principate until Maximinus Thrax. A roman governor in Mesopotamia far from Rome, under permanent influence of these oriental aristocrats has a hard time to not usurp and become the new King of Kings himself. Furthermore the romans would import a 3rd strong culture into the empire, which is not roman or greek but oriental. Perhaps one of many reasons, why Hadrian a rather "philosophic" emperor, backed off.


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.

Of course the republican romans did not care about overstretching. And honestly, whith just the provinces of Asia and Syria surrounded by a bunch of client states, it was perhaps not already overstretched. Probably overstretched for the republican model, but not for the principate. It seems that Augustus had a clue about overstretching, because he finally recommended to not expand any further than he already did.

But the point is not, if the romans know about overstretching or not. If they cross the Euphrat they overstretch massively! And that means that they run into a lot of trouble with usurpations. Not in hundred years but rather in a few decades.

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.

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.
 
Last edited:

GdwnsnHo

Banned
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.

I do find the idea of a "Romano-Persian" split interesting.

Assuming the frontiers are

1) The Rhine
2) The Danube
3) The Caucuses
4) Central Asia
5) Hindu Kush

I'd expect

1) The Gallic Empire - Gaul, Hispania, Britannia, focusing on defending the Rhine

2) The Illyrian Empire - Italia, Illyria, Greece - focused on defending the Danube

3) The Caucasian Empire - Anatolia, Armenia, (Mesopotamia) - focused on defending the Caucasus.

4) The Persian Empire - Persia Proper, Afghanistan, Baluchistan - focused on defending against Central Asia and the Hindu Kush.

The only area I'm unsure about is Syria and Egypt - which could be part of the Caucasian or Central Empires - or its own focused on Arabia - and the other part I'm not 100% on is Mesopotamia, which could be useful for the Persian, Caucasian, or potential 'Palmyrene Empire'

Just a few pennies of though :)
 
I don't see much diminishment or a strong process of iranization before the Rise of the Sassanids.
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 see no strategic need to provincialize more than Mesopotamia and Armenia in a first step
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.
So I agree here with you - the first step is to defeat the Pathian shahanshah and take the sweetest part - Mesopotamia.
I cannot agree on Armenia though - the Armenians will be the most natural allies of Caesar against the Parthians (like they allied with Marcus Antonius in OTL). Caesar will crush Armenia after he conqueres all the Parthian Empire and the Armenians will be no longer needed.

Media, Susiana and Persis are ...
... 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.

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.
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.

A roman governor in Mesopotamia far from Rome, under permanent influence of these oriental aristocrats has a hard time to not usurp
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.

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.
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.

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.
That's my dream - to make a TL "Bellum Parficum" - like Caesar takes the Seleucid Empire from the Parthians (instead of Gaul).
And see what happens with the Roman Empire in a century or so after that.
But I am afraid my real life doesn't make it happen - no free time kills many a good idea :)
 
Last edited:
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.

Iran perhaps would be "horse territory" but the overall Middle East is not necessarily. The Assyrians for example for their time where famous for heavy infantry in an area significantly hotter than Iran.
 
Last edited:
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. The Ganges and Deccan didn't matter back then, a bunch of petty kingdoms with no history of greatness, it was the inspiration of Alexander and the Greek culture that led to future unification and empires (Chandragupta and the Maurya Empire). 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, and all other aspects (unless you're a Dravidian I suppose). The difference between a Persian and Indian was less defined, Persia had a huge impact and strong presence in India (remember- Pakistan IS India!).

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) the Indian sub-continent has had centuries to build an identity and even Persians had differentiated enough from northwestern Indians that the Indus Valley was no longer in the middle of the spectrum of Indo-Aryans, it was clearly Indian at that point (whereas the Baluchis and Pashto ended up being more Iranian). The Kushans had invaded this northeastern portion of classic India, and trade with them was important to the Romans as it was an important empire on the Silk Road and contact with China, but southern (Dravidian) part of India was even more important.

The Romans controlled Aden briefly (not often shown on maps of the Roman Empire) and had colonies of traders in India, you'd have to have Rome take Himyarite Kingdom (Yemen) and/or Ethiopia/Aksum.
 
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.

Eh?

There was a pretty much direct pipeline- South Indian spice ports > Arab ports > egypt and levantine roman ports
 
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.
Indus valley was quite remote for India at this point : while clearly more wealthy than most of Central Asia parts Alexander took,

It's quite telling that no mention of Alexander made it to Indian history : where things happened in India at this point was either in Ganges' valley (Nanda then Maurya Empire) or in the south.

Most trade roads stopped at the Indus, that could have been considered a bit of a remote place, more or less a march, not unlike Macedonia was in the classical Greek era.

The Ganges and Deccan didn't matter back then, a bunch of petty kingdoms with no history of greatness
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.
Would it be all, it wouldn't be exactly in what I'd call "didn't mattered".

Eventually, most of the earlier kingdoms/republics in this period of Indian history originated from the Ganges basin.

Deccan : While less brillant than Ganges, politically and culturally, it harboured important kingdoms.
Avanti may be the most known, because it was one of the most important in India, described as particularly powerful. Eventually, it became part of the aformentioned Gangetic polities (that were clearly unified at this point, and not only during Maurya dynasty).

Considering the Mahajanapadas as irrelevant because they weren't unified, makes as much sense than saying the same about Greek city-states. Political division says nothing about the advencement and influence of a civilisation.
For what matter cultural influence, political and social organisation, early Indian states had not much to envy from Greeks.

it was the inspiration of Alexander and the Greek culture that led to future unification and empires (Chandragupta and the Maurya Empire).
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.

As for Alexander's influence on Indian polities, it existed (it was never put in question) but was indirect : the political vaacum in Indus' valley after his death (remember, we're talking of Client kings in this region, not satrapies of Alexander's Empire, that revolted without real trouble in -323) probably was a target of choice for Maurya, making their conquest of Penjab all the easier.

But, and I'd stress that, it wasn't directly due to Alexandrine campaign in India, which was more or less an important raid, and was barely acknowledged by most Indian polities.

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,
Nobody said it wasn't, but I think you're overestimating the importance of Indus in Indian classical civilisation.
Except Indus Civilisation (whom role in the formation of Indian Civilisation, is meager)

It's worth noting that a good part of what made the Indus polities relatively important (that said, up to the Muslim conquest they remained fairly peripherical, either at the doors of empires as Gupta, or part of it as with Kushans) was their part in international trade.
And in the IVth century BC, structures as Silk Road simply didn't appeared yet : in many regards, Indus petty-kingdoms were more a border region, geographically marginal when it came to their relation with Indian trade, culture, etc.

and all other aspects (unless you're a Dravidian I suppose)
Indian civilisation is less about languages, than about societal/cultural structures : jainism and hinduism, for exemple, didn't really get develloped along linguistical lines.
As for the earliest origins of India, that is Indus civilisation, it's certainly much more related to Dravidians (altough not the same) than Indo-Aryan populations.

. The difference between a Persian and Indian was less defined, Persia had a huge impact and strong presence in India (remember- Pakistan IS India!).
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 strong presence and influence seems quite hard to proove, even in regions conquered or dominated as Sindh.

Not that you didn't have an influence, of course : karoshti script, probably coming from aramean script trough Persians, would be an exemple.
But it's fairly limited to parts at the direct contact of the Achemenid Empire, and later, Greco-Bacterians/Kushans : calling this influence "strong", would be pushing it.

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)
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. :D

The farness of India is highlighted by the really few number of ambassy and direct relations with Indian rulers : they were sparse enough that it became an event; when relations with other polities (Persian Empires, Celts confederations and peoples, Dacians, etc.) are established on a more or less regular manner.

that the Indus Valley was no longer in the middle of the spectrum of Indo-Aryans, it was clearly Indian at that point
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).

The Romans controlled Aden briefly (not often shown on maps of the Roman Empire)
Mostly because it wasn't a conquest, but a military operation ending with burning up the city.
A bit like, if you allow me the comparison, maps of Napoleonic Empire doesn't show Moscow as a Napoleonic conquest.

Aelius Gallius expeditions was more about making southern Arabian entities either more friendly to Roman interest or making them Roman clients.
How the whole thing hugely and deeply failed is interesting : getting lost in the desert, being decimated by epidemics, making a poor show of force (besieging Ma'ri for only an handful of days before leaving the siege) and generally overextending supply possibilities.

While it certainly helped to force Greco-Egyptian trade in Indian Ocean, neither this expeditions or the others (as Caius Caesar's) nearly came close to allow Romans operating militarily in the region.
Eventually, these had more pressing and closer issues mostly related to Persians (that incidentally weren't exactly thrilled to see feeble Romans attempt at circumvent their presence) or Barbaricum peoples to simply waste away troops and ressources in semi-mythical conquests, without supply lines worth of the name.

you'd have to have Rome take Himyarite Kingdom (Yemen) and/or Ethiopia/Aksum.
Giving how half-assed tentatives to do that IOTL, failed completly...
I think it's doable, while it would ask more than you're implying it would request, and even to maintain such conquest/clientelisation more than a reign.
But giving Romans were already on the verge of being overextended, that it wouldn't give them much more of an edge in their overall position; I simply don't think it would make conquests of India or part of it more likely : Arabia was simply on the edge of their possibilities and too open to Persian intervention to serve as a launching harbour.
 
Top