If we're talking about the Plateau in general, Parthian regions started to rebel and the Arsacids went into Parthia around that time. It's true that they weren't in Pars by then, but they were in the Iranian Plateau.
WI/AHC: Romans deal with Persia.
- Thread starter Historyman 14
- Start date
If we're talking about the Plateau in general, Parthian regions started to rebel and the Arsacids went into Parthia around that time. It's true that they weren't in Pars by then, but they were in the Iranian Plateau.
The Parthians formed a state around their homonymous region at around 250 BCE, and cobbled together an empire in the Iranian Plateau proper as the Seleucids tried (and, because of defeats against Rome, failed) to reorient their influence towards the Aegean.
Right, I just assumed we were talking about Perdua proper. I get what you're saying now.
Toraach
Banned
The problem is that Zoroastrianism as we know it, developed during the Sassanians, we don't know much how it looked under the Arsacids.
1. Alexander Severus is too late, the dark clouds were gathering in the north aroud this time. And the fate of Maximianus Thrax shows us that the imperial society wasn't willing to pay higher taxes for stronger army needed to repeal the northern barbarians.
2. This doesn't matter. They won't be bringing their supplies from Rome. There is enough grain in Mesopotamia itself to feed legions, and even money for soldiers' salaries, comes mostly from closer regions and Mesopotamia itself, which are the richest parts of the Oikoumene. For how foraging looked in the Roman Times, I reccomend looking into Ceasar's diaries.
3. Mesopotamia's value isn't in denying it's resources to the Persians (whatever they are, because I'm not sure, we are talking about the Arsacids or the Sassanians, or just about common folk which spoke one of iranian languages in the Plateau), but that together with Egypt that is the richest and the most fertile land in Oikoumene known to the Romans. It was possible to foreigners to conquer the Iranian Plateau in history, so it would have been possible for Roman if they had seriously tryied. I mean, Alexander, later the Parthians (yes, the Arsacid Dynasty were iranized steppe nomads!, and finally the Arabs). Kushans? I reccomend to look at the map of the region. The Iranian Plateau is divided into two parts, by deserts in the middle.
4. The Suez Canal? What doest it has common with the military campaing against the Arsacids? But also there was some canal during the roman period, or slightlhy earlier, I don't remember exactly, but roman traders sailed to India from egyptian ports on the Red Sea.
I would rather say that "gross understimation of Rome strikes again".
First, we need to establish, a time period about we are talking. I vote for the Principate, because for the Late Empire and the Sassanians I think that we can agree that the Romans were to weak and the Iranians too strong for the roman conquest.
1. During two generations(Cesar in 50s BC and August later), the Romans conquered and estabilished in Europe provinces in lands of Gaul, Noricum, Retia, Panonia, Ilyria, Dalmatia, Moesia. It isn't a small area.
How was the Parthian Kingdom organized? It wasn't that well organized conglomerate of domains. Densely populated? Well, Galia during Ceasar's conquest also wasn't an empty woodland with wisents and auchrons. Mesopotamia was densely populated, but also the easiest for conquest. For the Plateau. Media, Susiana, Persis weren't empty but had their chunck of mountains, deserts and such, and to be honest, it is easier to conquer a densely populated developed land than woodland. Religion didn't matter for the Greeks (or Macedonians, whatever), so didn't matter for Romans. Still the religious situation in earlier period wasn't the same as during the Sassanians. Carthage ? It's a myth. The Romans destroyed just one big city, when other punic/phoenician cities in future Africa Proconsularis were left intact, and phoenician civilization thrived in them to romanization which happened many generations later. Because the Romans weren't interesting in destroying all this land, but in destroying one particular city, which they hated so much. So there weren't any problems with integration of carthaginian lands. Romans conquered and integrated into their empire the whole greek speaking east, ok, that was a process which lasted long generations, but those lands were very very well developed. Egypt during Augustus' reign also wasn't a small and unimportant land. Iran was also divided into several groups. And Mesopotamia was civilizationally a diffrent stuff than the Plateau. To be honest the Plateau wasn't that developed as was the hellenic speaking east, Mesopotamia and Egypt.
For Korea and Japan. Also bad analogy. China was able to conquer and integrate the south of Yangtze, which lands were initialy populated by no-chinese peoples. Japan and Korea were culturally sinicized (a good word?). For Japan there were only two attempts of invading during the Mongol time. But for Korea, those kingdoms were chinese vassals during various times in their history. There were also a period when area at least of contemporary North Korea was under full chinese control. "Four commanderies of Han".
The Seleucids. Hmmm. Decentralized? Romans weren't decentralized? The Roman Empire under the principate was also very decentralized. It was basically just two levels. The Emperor with his chanchelary, and the provincial governors, outside that there were countless towns and cities, which governed themselves and collected taxes for the Emperor, in places not yet urbanized there were "tribes/peoeples, etc". Urbanization in roman termst I mean when there is formed something which governs themselves like polis, not just a town in functional meaning, because bigger gallic opidia were towns in functional meaning, but not in roman meaning. Still the most important thing, the West of Plateau vs. the East of Plateau. It wasn't that easy to cross it, and there weren't that many ways. So nothing strange that the Seleucid after they lost Parthia proper for the Arsacids circa 250bc didn't reconquer that, but still the kept the western part, Susiana, Persis and Media. Which were for them far more important than some remote area behind the Caspian Sea and Hyrkania. So that's 150 years of control of the West of Plateau. Also those parts were the most important for Romans, not some semilegendary Bactria or Ariana.
As I say it is important what we want Romans to conquer, the whole plateau, the west of plateau, or Mesopotamia. All scenarios are diffrent.
ar-pharazon
Banned
I still want to imagine Roman legions marching through the mountains of modern day Afghanistan and Pakistan-emulating Alexander as they plant the imperial standard on the banks of the Indus River.
Plagues tend to run wild. No, you want a period of instability, civil war, centrifugalism, dynastic conflicts, economic upheavals.
Look, here's how it works. Most of history is not two bulls fighting it out and the winning bull triumphantly owning the future. Wars of conquest or subjugation against nearly or equally as powerful rivals make for stirring histories, but usually then end up being costly and counterproductive. They suck up manpower and resources.
What you want is the sneaky hit. Go after the enemy while they're at their weakest, take advantage of decline and dissension. That's your lowest cost/most reward form of conquest and consolidation.
@Toraach
One thing about Carthage, though: four generations after it was destroyed by the Romans, and its earth allegedly salted, Carthage was rebuilt by Caesar, because of its strategic value as an entrepot, and also because nearby Utica was having its earth silted and eroded because of agriculture.
One thing about Carthage, though: four generations after it was destroyed by the Romans, and its earth allegedly salted, Carthage was rebuilt by Caesar, because of its strategic value as an entrepot, and also because nearby Utica was having its earth silted and eroded because of agriculture.
Last edited:
I'm sorry, but I'm afraid most of those ideas are missing the point.
1. Given how much army pay continued to rise throughout the 3rd century, I'm not sure that that statement has any bearing on what the historical record shows. The point I was making, however, is that the Parthian Empire was collapsing right as his reign started, and he led what was a very well-organized invasion. If the campaign was better executed, the Sassanid legitimacy could have been fatally undermined, achieving the goal. Whatever challenges the Romans would face to the north are irrelevant to that fact.
2. Yes, the logistics do matter, and there is a reason why the borders of the Empire so closely mirror the Mediterranean coast. Being supported entirely by the local economy and not by the combined whole of the Imperial economy entirely misses the point of having an empire. Foraging off the land works when you're fighting a war and in foreign territory. Thats not how garrison armies are maintained.
3. Mesopotamia is rich. But the cost of holding it is immense. Again, long travel times, high travel costs, moving men and material back and forth is prohibitive. There's a reason why Hadrian abandoned Mesopotamia, and a reason why no other Emperor after Trajan even bothered to try to annex the territory. Its just too damn hard. Of the two empires, Persia can more efficiently extract value from Mesopotamia, so holding it is more useful as a way to deny that wealth to the enemy. As for the Kushans, I'm just offering up a major power just east of the Persians around this time. The White Huns were certainly a threat to the Sassanids, and they were coming from the same basic direction.
4. Because its quicker, cheaper, and easier to project power through a naval logistics route that runs from the Mediterranean down the Red Sea and up into the Persian Gulf than it is to attack Mesopotamia overland. The Pharonic canal was not large enough for naval vessels.
Like I said, check out that map and start running some numbers. I've done so, and I've gone through the effort to determine the best ways to support an invasion of Persia. You can, too, if you take the time to do the math.
I agree with you in this regard. I think the Germanic Front is pretty quiet early in Sev Alexander's reign. Caracalla sealed up the front pretty well when he was in the West. I don't think Alexander faced a major crisis there until 230's. So that gives you some time to play with.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caracalla
The PoD isn't "a few more deserts and mountain range out east"; this is the Roman Empire totally eliminating their greatest "civilised" rival and making a massive change in their way of life both at home and abroad - including for the people who became the first Christians. I'm not saying this is about Christianity in particular, but it knocks everything we know about the world so far sideways that we have to reconsider the inherent likelihood of Christianity getting the traction it did. And that inherent likelihood is very, very low.
Instead of talking about the odds of polytheism prevailing, we should talk about the odds of monotheism (in the specific form of Christianity) advancing.
Why? It's no less likely than OTL.
The only major change is that in addition to a lot of Hellenised Jews (to whom early Christianity appealed) you now also get a lot of Hellenised Zoroastrians, which may well add another religion or two to the mix. Maybe something like Manichaenism gets started a couple of centuries earlier. No obvious reason why Graeco-Roman polytheism should benefit.
One thought.
WI Justinian I never becomes Emperor, and instead they get a dynasty from Syria or somewhere like that, who are more sympathetic to the Monophysites. They support with money and maybe force (perhaps in alliance with Abyssinia) the Christian tribes in Arabia, which iirc were mostly of that denomination. So Mohammad (if he still gets born) never gets the upper hand there.
Come the next Persian war, Byzantium fights it with the help of Arab auxiliaries, who deliver some impressive victories and Persia collapses. Could we end up with a "Byzantium" extending from the Adriatic to the Oxus and Indus?
WI Justinian I never becomes Emperor, and instead they get a dynasty from Syria or somewhere like that, who are more sympathetic to the Monophysites. They support with money and maybe force (perhaps in alliance with Abyssinia) the Christian tribes in Arabia, which iirc were mostly of that denomination. So Mohammad (if he still gets born) never gets the upper hand there.
Come the next Persian war, Byzantium fights it with the help of Arab auxiliaries, who deliver some impressive victories and Persia collapses. Could we end up with a "Byzantium" extending from the Adriatic to the Oxus and Indus?
ar-pharazon
Banned
Maybe.
I could see a longer situation where the Byzantines and Sassanids fight it out one more time in a no Islam scenario-the 8th and final war is fought maybe around 800 or so.
And the Byzantines manage to outlast the Persians and the Persian state collapses and the various noble families are devastated/destroyed.
Maybe with a Hail Mary invasion from the steppes-which breaks Persian power.
Thus Byzantium comes out triumphant-battered, bloodied and exhausted but victorious.
I could see a longer situation where the Byzantines and Sassanids fight it out one more time in a no Islam scenario-the 8th and final war is fought maybe around 800 or so.
And the Byzantines manage to outlast the Persians and the Persian state collapses and the various noble families are devastated/destroyed.
Maybe with a Hail Mary invasion from the steppes-which breaks Persian power.
Thus Byzantium comes out triumphant-battered, bloodied and exhausted but victorious.
One really interesting thing about the history of the Roman-Parthian Wars is that, except for the early disastrous campaigns of Crassus and Mark Antony, the Romans won just about every one of the wars. The Romans won the various wars over Armenia in the 60s CE, Trajan conquered Mesopotamia in the early 100s CE, Marcus Aurelius beat the Parthians back in the 160s CE, and the Severan emperors smacked down the armies of the crumbling Parthian Empire during their wars in the early 200s CE. So why was the Roman Empire never able to follow up on their victories with a total conquest? One reason was that the logistics of supplying and communicating with legionary garrisons across the Mediterranean and then over the Euphrates, through the desert, over the Tigris, and then over the Zagros Mountains would basically be impossible, and if they had tried, the costs alone would've drained Rome's treasury dry. Another reason was that any areas they conquered (even if briefly) were in constant revolt, and the traditional method of quieting dissent (garrisoning a few legions and building colonies to Romanize the inhabitants) would not work. Unlike Gaul or Hispania, there were already well-established cities with their own culture and traditions going back thousands of years (even further back than the city of Rome itself). It's not so easy to supplant this already established culture, so it's doubtful that Rome could even hold onto its preliminary conquests without spending major money. In short it was too hard and too expensive, which is why it never happened to begin with.
Last edited:
Could Caracalla getting his desired marriage result in some sort of a personal union later down the line?
Cuāuhtemōc
Banned
Couldn't this work with Mark Antony winning against Octavian or at least maintaining his hold over Rome's eastern territories? Then Antony invades Parthia and installs one of his sons as the ruler?
I doubt it could ever have worked out. It seems clear that Caracalla never intended to accept the marriage proposal, he just wanted to catch the Parthians off guard and gather their nobility in one place to be killed. Ignoring this lets have everything go smoothly and Caracalla accepts the marriage. Rome is now strongly allied with Tiridates of Armenia and Artabanus of Parthia. Implying he doesn't get assassinated, Caracalla still has to help Artabanus keep his throne against Vologases and Ardashir who I guess will be even more popular since Artabanus sold out to Rome. If he manages to accomplish this than maybe....
Last edited:
1. All of the areas you specified (Gaul, Ratio, etc) were geographically separated and politically very divided when they were conquered, so they aren't really appropriate for an analogy to the Parthian or Sassanian Empires, which were well-established, politically united, and militarily powerful states with large treasuries and loyal populations.
2. Not really sure what point you're trying to make about Mesopotamia being densely populated and religiously different from the Roman world? If I'm interpreting what you're saying correctly, then you're implying that assimilating Carthage or Greece wasn't hard so why would assimilating Mesopotamia be hard? Well for one thing, Carthage and Greece were a lot closer to Rome, so sending legions/colonists was very cheap and easy, whereas Mesopotamia is much further and requires more expensive transportation and way slower lines of communication (which was a bigger deal in the ancient world than most people realize).
3. The Roman Empire was definitely not decentralized. The emperor could appoint all provincial governors and decide who the consuls were, as well as command all of the legions of the empire at his discretion, which is an extremely centralized way to run your empire. The fact that the principate was governed by "just two levels" means it was even more centralized than the early dominate (which was by Diocletian's design). Adding levels makes the government more, not less, decentralized. The reason the Parthian Empire is referred to as "decentralized" is because there were semi-autonomous kingships (in Media, Susania, etc.) under the purview of the Parthian "King of Kings" (a la the Achaemanid model of government). This decentralization is sometimes seen as a weakness of the Parthian government, but it also means that these regions could resist Roman occupation without help from the main Parthian army through their native leadership and government while the Parthian king himself could regroup and build his army through a strategic retreat.
In conclusion, the main issue is threefold:
1. the great distance between Rome and the territories you're trying to conquer (as well as the rough terrain involved)
2. the fact that they would certainly rebel upon their conquest (this happened IOTL)
3. the Parthians/Sassanians would certainly devote all their resources to reconquering the region