WI : Great Wall of Anatolia

Whilst there have been threads about building a wall along the Danube, or other places, one location seems overlooked.

Southern Anatolia.

It just seems unusual, surely a series of passage blocking fortifications could be built along the high ridge of the Anatolian Plateau.

Hypothetically, what would be the result of a wall that fortified the length of the Taurus Mts and (increasingly over time) the Armenian Highlands, as well as potentially a branch that fortified the Bargylus Mountains (so as to protect Cilicia.

I'm unsure what would feasibly need to be done to fortify that range, the length or the cost, but being mountains, I can't see it requiring huge quantities of construction except in the larger passes.

Say it is started towards the middle of the Heraclian Dynasty, as a slow way of fortifying Anatolia against further incursions -what are the likely long-term impacts?
 
It is actually feasible regarding manning, since fortified small mountain passes would not need many men to defend.

Each, certainly. (Depending on the quality of the fortification), but the infrastructure involved might require a lot of manpower. I.e. the supply lines, secure routes for reinforcements and rotations, etc.

Admittedly, the security provided by the wall is a huge benefit, especially in Eastern Anatolia, as it is hard to reach by sea (except from the north coast). So you could see more urban development on the footsteps on the wall - a lot like how the major passes/gates of the Great Wall of China had cities behind them. All of which would be great at projecting Roman authority deep into Armenia.
 
I had a thought, I know that the Persians (pre-Islam, dunno about post-Islam), were quite big fans of resettling entire cities of people during a war (notably, Antioch).

With a wall in place, would that make sense for the Romans in Anatolia? As soon as you're behind the wall there is more-or-less no way out, and the security it provides should allow much wider settlement, as long as there is food to go around.

Combine that with the slums of Constantinople as a source, how populous could the region become without modern farming techniques.

The other (slightly mad) idea, was this wall may well have to interrupt more than a few tributaries of both the Tigris, and Euphrates.

There are five questions this raises (for me).

1) Where does the water go? I'm guessing redirected into Roman territory (perhaps shiny new aqueducts?)
2) Can the Romans build the physical wall-dams. After all, this is technically a fortified dam, even if each one is small, that is still a big deal.
3) What damage does this do to the down-stream economies. Sure there is some water cut off, but what percentage of water comes from Roman territory? Tied to this is the question of what benefit does it provide Anatolia? Having increased water may well end the Central Anatolian Steppe, but the water still has to GO somewhere.
4) If you were attacking these walls, what would you do? If the wall breaks - you're army risks getting hit by a wall of water. Would breaking the wall be the aim anyway?
5) What sort of 'walls'/'dams' would these be? A fortified Arched Dam sounds like an awesome idea. If we mimic the Kassarine Dam in Tunisia, then it would already be thicker than either layer of the Theodosian Walls, if a fraction of their length at 7m thick and 150m wide. (The second number I expect to change more than the first).

It just seems scary, that theoretically, a wall would both provide military security, but by blocking the rivers, provide water security for Anatolia itself, and support large border cities with Dam-Walls that are potentially stronger than the rest of the walls, and suicidal to lay siege to.
 
Why would it be any worse than the OTL dams on the Tigris and Euphrates has been? The question is if you can create something similar to, say, the Ataturk Dam in Antiquity/the Middle Ages.

Such a wall could be useful to construct for the Persians or Arabs as well.
 
Why would it be any worse than the OTL dams on the Tigris and Euphrates has been? The question is if you can create something similar to, say, the Ataturk Dam in Antiquity/the Middle Ages.

Such a wall could be useful to construct for the Persians or Arabs as well.

Looking at examples, I don't think the Romans could make them THAT large. So it'd have to be higher in the mountains, and a couple of them at that.

I also don't know the effects of the Ataturk Dam - but that is a hydroelectric dam, water flows through it. In contrast, do you want a wall-dam to allow water through? I wouldn't expect so when Persia isn't exactly an ally, and you can obliquely hurt.

Also, where would the Persians or Arabs build them? Are we talking Zagros, or elsewhere? Because if the Arabs or Persians build them on the edge of Anatolia, they're downhill. Which seems like a bad idea as they're then easier to lay siege to.
 
I guess you've gotta weigh the question "do I want to abandon the Levant and Mesopotamia to the Persians/Arabs/whoever", since if you wrecked the rivers downstream you'd be shooting your own economy in the foot assuming you controlled them. Displacing that many people might lead to some problems too. Of course, if you just want to wall yourself up in Anatolia for generations, then it isn't as much of a problem.

The Arab/Persian version of the walls would be in similar places to where you pointed out in your OP. Or otherwise something like what's depicted here, since the OTL Byzantine-Arab frontier zone would be a pretty good place for either side (or a powerful Persian empire) to build something like this. It might even be more useful for them, since it would help restrict a Byzantine reconquest of the Near East or Mesopotamia.
 
I guess you've gotta weigh the question "do I want to abandon the Levant and Mesopotamia to the Persians/Arabs/whoever", since if you wrecked the rivers downstream you'd be shooting your own economy in the foot assuming you controlled them. Displacing that many people might lead to some problems too. Of course, if you just want to wall yourself up in Anatolia for generations, then it isn't as much of a problem.

That might be an interesting design concern, I still think maintaining Anatolia as a stronger heartland would be the better decision, since taking Mesopotamia would involve different defensive considerations. Plus, in this scenario, you'd be hard pressed to argue Mesopotamia would be as easy to defend as this Anatolia.

As for displacement, callus as it sounds, is the Romans problem. Dubiously moral, yes - but not their problem. In fact, the instability caused would weaken their enemies, which could well be useful.

I'm not saying the Romans will stay behind the wall forever, but I think the Levant is (mostly) untouched, as the Euphrates is the only affected river, tightening the better parts of Syria to the controllable coastline and mountains, whilst the rest impacts Mesopotamia proper.

Then again, who knows, it might be considered prudent at some point to distribute water out of the reservoirs. It may not be as large a quantity as it was before, but it isn't an insurmountable challenge.

The Arab/Persian version of the walls would be in similar places to where you pointed out in your OP. Or otherwise something like what's depicted here, since the OTL Byzantine-Arab frontier zone would be a pretty good place for either side (or a powerful Persian empire) to build something like this. It might even be more useful for them, since it would help restrict a Byzantine reconquest of the Near East or Mesopotamia.

I suppose it depends on the sites chosen. My understanding is generally Anatolia is further above sea level, and so most fortifications would have the heights at their back.

I'm not sure it would be as useful, because Arabs/Persians/Egyptians may also be invading each other, but they could certainly have a shorter equivalent in place, notably Persia in SE Armenia/NW Iran.
 
Top