IOTL, Quintus Labienus, son of pro-Caesarian general Titus Labienus, was a rogue general who opposed the Second Triumvirate (42-31 BCE). He estabilished an alliance with Parthia and raided the Roman Oriental provinces, mainly Syria. He was defeated by Marc Antony’ forces in a battle somewhere near the Cilician mountains, at around 40 BCE.
Whether he was fighting as a pro-Republican general, like Sextus Pompey, with Parthian support or as a deserter general in direct service to the Parthian king is unclear, at least to me.
So, i posit a question: what if Quintus, this “Roman spahbed”, had been more successful in his campaigns across Roman Asia? Could he contribute to a Parthia-wank scenario of sorts, capturing Cappadocia, Cilicia, and Syria for the Iranians? After all, an allied general with proper knowlege on how the Romans fought their battles would have been useful to them.
 
IOTL, Quintus Labienus, son of pro-Caesarian general Titus Labienus, was a rogue general who opposed the Second Triumvirate (42-31 BCE). He estabilished an alliance with Parthia and raided the Roman Oriental provinces, mainly Syria. He was defeated by Marc Antony’ forces in a battle somewhere near the Cilician mountains, at around 40 BCE.
Whether he was fighting as a pro-Republican general, like Sextus Pompey, with Parthian support or as a deserter general in direct service to the Parthian king is unclear, at least to me.
So, i posit a question: what if Quintus, this “Roman spahbed”, had been more successful in his campaigns across Roman Asia? Could he contribute to a Parthia-wank scenario of sorts, capturing Cappadocia, Cilicia, and Syria for the Iranians? After all, an allied general with proper knowlege on how the Romans fought their battles would have been useful to them.

I think Ventidius' excellent generalship was the main cause of the Parthian defeat. The Parthians seemed easily able to best other Roman commanders who came their way so far but not Ventidius. So have Ventidius either killed early or not given the command. The Parthians and Labienus now have free reign for a bit to take what they want. They could take Syria, peel away some of Antony client kings in Asia Minor or put a puppet on the throne of Judea as they did with Antigonus II. I think the Parthians could have achieved alot of early success.

The main issue I think would be the Roman counter attack. Would the Parthians be able to survive the full brunt of Antony's legions? Would Octavian even send Antony aid to beat back the Parthians?
 
Last edited:
The main issue I think would be the Roman counter attack. Would the Parthians be able to survive the full brunt of Antony's legions? Would Octavian even send Antony aid to beat back the Parthians?
I think it depends on how much support the Parthians can drum up in the regions they just captured. Roman Asia still wasn't all that loyal to the senate by that time, i think.

Now, looking back at Labienus' motivations... it seems doubtful that he'd manage to ressurect the Pompeian cause. The senate was already under Octavian's aegis and the public was well affected by his propaganda, and his obvious alliance with those Iranian barbarians would not endear him to Rome. Therefore, him deserting to Parthia wouldn't seem like that disadvantageous a choice.
 
I think it depends on how much support the Parthians can drum up in the regions they just captured. Roman Asia still wasn't all that loyal to the senate by that time, i think.

Now, looking back at Labienus' motivations... it seems doubtful that he'd manage to ressurect the Pompeian cause. The senate was already under Octavian's aegis and the public was well affected by his propaganda, and his obvious alliance with those Iranian barbarians would not endear him to Rome. Therefore, him deserting to Parthia wouldn't seem like that disadvantageous a choice.

I agree with your points. I think Labienus was probably pushed more by opportunism rather than ideology. His father served Caesar as his second in command in Gaul than defected to Pompey, so the family has a history of doing this sort of thing. I don't think he had any intention of revamping the Pompeian-Republican cause though if an opportunity presented itself I could see him taking it up again. I'm unsure as to his end game. He could serve the Parthians merely as a general-adviser or more ambitiously he takes the path of Odaenathus and carves out his own kingdom with Parthian aid.
 
Bumping.
How would this affect the Parthian crown prince Pacorus (who never ascended to the throne IOTL, maybe because he was killed by Ventidius)?
 
I agree with your points. I think Labienus was probably pushed more by opportunism rather than ideology. His father served Caesar as his second in command in Gaul than defected to Pompey, so the family has a history of doing this sort of thing.
See, I think Titus was pretty clearly motivated by principle more than opportunism - he defected from Ceasar just as his former commander was crossing the Rubicon, a risky move politically, and made no effort to steal Ceasar’s legions in Gaul when he did so.

The son, however, is a very different story.
 
Bumping.
How would this affect the Parthian crown prince Pacorus (who never ascended to the throne IOTL, maybe because he was killed by Ventidius)?

Good thought because Pacorus would surely have been a better ruler than Phraates IV, V and queen Musa. They weakened Parthia a lot. The country became too unstable to defend itself and was forced to obey Augustus' wishes . With Pacorus at the helm Parthia probably takes a tougher stance on Rome and Armenia .
 
Top