WI:Hadrian tried to hold Mesopotamia at all costs?

I always thought the idea of uniting Armenia with Mesopotamia might be big enough of a buffer state to keep Parthia off of Rome's back.

Of course, it is a big risk. This hypothetical buffer state could easily turn on its master at a time of weakness, and an invasion of Syria would be a plausible place for expansion (more plausible than expansion into the Iranian plateau in my view).
 
Historians guess that the parthian army was usually around 40-80.000 men strong. This equates to about 6 legions plus auxilia. But you need much more forces, because the new border of Mesopotamia and Armenia is damn long and you never know, where this highly mobile parthian army, mainly composed of cavalry, attacks.

It is rather easy for a roman army to march down to Ctesiphon, beat the defending parthian army on their way south, plunder the cities and go back. But it is a fully different story to defend Mesopotamia against this highly mobile army offending where and when they want.

So as mentioned above, you have to disable the parthian economy and manpower, by conquering much more than just Mesopotamia! I guess 2 armies with 6 legions plus auxilia each (like Tiberius had against Marbod) coming from Mesopotamia and Armenia could do it. But thats a huge and very expensive force. The romans could not risk to take away so many legions from their other borders.

Would reforming legions (and administration) as Diocletian/Constantine did, help? I mean- increase taxation, levy more soldiers, fortify border (but after establishing it much further east). Was it possible at all at this point? Or maybe something a bit less drastic, increasing Roman military temporarily, just to allow permanent pacification of this region and securing eastern border? I admit that it seems like costly endeavor, but really worth it in the long run- even excluding possibility of Sassanian rise.
 
Would reforming legions (and administration) as Diocletian/Constantine did, help? I mean- increase taxation, levy more soldiers, fortify border (but after establishing it much further east). Was it possible at all at this point? Or maybe something a bit less drastic, increasing Roman military temporarily, just to allow permanent pacification of this region and securing eastern border? I admit that it seems like costly endeavor, but really worth it in the long run- even excluding possibility of Sassanian rise.

I am convinced, that some of Diocletians measures, especially his new tax and supply system rescued the desolate roman empire. But it also ruined the empire longterm, because this system of annonae based on capitatio et iugatio could easily lead to a detrimental overtaxation. Especially in combination with the militarisation of the civil administration and the society introduced by Diocletian.

The military reform, which led to the more flexible late roman army was not Diocletians invention. It was rather a gradual process beginning with Gallienus (if not earlier) until the sons of Constantinus. Nevertheless, adaption of the army structure to the enemies strength always help. And the romans adapted always. Just look to Arrians report about the battle against the Alans and you see how flexible the roman army of the 2nd century always was, if facing a cavalry army.

The romans could have used the great income from the Dacian wars in order to get the legions needed. These are about 12 as mentioned above. Some of them not new legions, because you could use some (not all) of the 6 legions in Syria and Cappadocia. After Media is conquered, the iranian deserts are the new border, and a client King in Persis and Parthia is established, the number of legions could be slightly reduced. Just slightly, because you need forces to secure the hinterland. However the main forces are now in Media and Armenia to secure the new eastern border. The additional ongoing costs for more legions from now on could be covered by the additional taxes from the rich new provinces.

But as mentioned above: Military was not the main issue! Thats the much easier part of this adventure.
If you deploy just 5 legions to Media, you are in trouble, if you deploy 10, you get more trouble, and with 15 trouble would go thru the roof.
 
Last edited:
This might be a bit nuts,but is it actually plausible to forcibly deport most of the entire population of Mesopotamia Carthaginian style and settle them in the less populated provinces?If you can't have something,the next best thing would have been to deny it to your enemy.I know this sounds crazy and would probably cause MASSIVE RESISTANCE,but it's not the first time the Romans did a population transfer.

No way. First and foremost- most of Carthaginian population never actually relocated (Punic languages in North Africa died after Arab conquests! Although they were in decline earlier) and we're talking about coastal area here. Mesopotamia is deep inland, so any attempts of population relocation would be genocide. Not that I'd exclude this option- it's something that Romans did sometimes. But doing this in frontier province would be harder than conquering something else, so Mesopotamia is more manageable.
 
No way. First and foremost- most of Carthaginian population never actually relocated (Punic languages in North Africa died after Arab conquests! Although they were in decline earlier) and we're talking about coastal area here. Mesopotamia is deep inland, so any attempts of population relocation would be genocide. Not that I'd exclude this option- it's something that Romans did sometimes. But doing this in frontier province would be harder than conquering something else, so Mesopotamia is more manageable.
Well,that's to be expected,I did say it was a bit nuts to begin with.I just wondered given the Roman history of doing that,would it have been anywhere near possible.
 
Last edited:
Well,that's to be expected,I did say it was a bit nuts to begin with.

Actually very nuts. The estimations about the population in ancient times are pretty vague and highly disputed. However, just some figures. Italy had about 14 million inhabitants. The province of Asia, too. Other regions like the entire Illyricum or Greece just 2 millions. Africa, Syria, Egypt and Hispania were medium sized with about 6 million inhabitants. And so was Mesopotamia with about 6 million inhabitants.

When the romans deported people, they deported just single tribes. Like the german Sugambri with perhaps about 100.000 inhabitants. So moving 60 times this amount of people is just impossible without ASBs.
 
Last edited:
Top