WI the Roman Empire keeps Mesopotamia

From what I understand, Mesopotamia was the economic heartland of the Persian Empire and its various incarnations ( e.g Parthians, Sassanids) since it the area around the Eufrates and Tigris rivers was so fertile, explaining why so many cities were located either in it or near it such as Babylon, Akkad, Susa, Assur, Niniveh, Ctesiphon and Seleucia.

In the early 2nd century AD the Romans under Trajan conquered it, severely weakening the Parthian Empire. And the Roman Empire looked like on the map in the link below which was its greatest extent:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:RomanEmpire_117.svg

IOTL the Romans left it because they felt they were overextended and Trajan felt too old to follow in the footsteps of Alexander the Great. Suppose the Romans somehow keep Mesopotamia and establish a border on the Zagros mountains after some more campaigning, crippling the Parthians and setting them up as puppets in what is now Iran. This relieves pressure on the eastern border immensely.

How does this effect the Romans in centuries to come and the Byzantines if the west still falls in spite of butterflies?

Note: my knowledge on the time period is limited so if I'm off-track, please don't keep it to yourself.

EDIT: lets say Caledonia is also conquered due to butterflies (and perhaps Hibernia), eliminating another border for the Romans to guard.
 

Germaniac

Donor
From what I understand, Mesopotamia was the economic heartland of the Persian Empire and its various incarnations ( e.g Parthians, Sassanids) since it the area around the Eufrates and Tigris rivers was so fertile, explaining why so many cities were located either in it or near it such as Babylon, Akkad, Susa, Assur, Niniveh, Ctesiphon and Seleucia.

In the early 2nd century AD the Romans under Trajan conquered it, severely weakening the Parthian Empire. And the Roman Empire looked like on the map in the link below which was its greatest extent:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:RomanEmpire_117.svg

IOTL the Romans left it because they felt they were overextended and Trajan felt too old to follow in the footsteps of Alexander the Great. Suppose the Romans somehow keep Mesopotamia and establish a border on the Zagros mountains after some more campaigning, crippling the Parthians and setting them up as puppets in what is now Iran. This relieves pressure on the eastern border immensely.

How does this effect the Romans in centuries to come and the Byzantines if the west still falls in spite of butterflies?

Note: my knowledge on the time period is limited so if I'm off-track, please don't keep it to yourself.

EDIT: lets say Caledonia is also conquered due to butterflies (and perhaps Hibernia), eliminating another border for the Romans to guard.

The Romans had no interest in Hibernia, and the German north will still flood down eventually.
 
An argument has been made that real problems started when the Romans knocked over the Parthians and the Sassanids took over. That is it was the pressure of fighting a powerful Persian empire that fueled much of the decline.
 
An argument has been made that real problems started when the Romans knocked over the Parthians and the Sassanids took over. That is it was the pressure of fighting a powerful Persian empire that fueled much of the decline.

I'm sympathetic to this view, but I see two problems. First, the Parthians clearly were not walkovers for the Romans. Notice how the Parthian Wars are correlated with major uprisings in the eastern Empire; I think it might have come close to a quasi-breaking point. Second, it seems to me that while the Romans can take Mesopotamia, holding it, as OTL demonstrates, is hard.
 
I'm sympathetic to this view, but I see two problems. First, the Parthians clearly were not walkovers for the Romans. Notice how the Parthian Wars are correlated with major uprisings in the eastern Empire; I think it might have come close to a quasi-breaking point. Second, it seems to me that while the Romans can take Mesopotamia, holding it, as OTL demonstrates, is hard.

You have a point, but though the Parthians were indeed the most capable foe of the Republic/Early Empire, they never came close to replicating the successes of the Sassanids- sacking Antioch, capturing Valerian, and so on and so forth. However, I can see a problem with this POD- I think it's quite likely that with the chaos that Parthia would certainly fall into following a permanent loss of Mesopotamia, the Sassanids could still quite easily rise; and perhaps earlier than in OTL. If this happens, and the Sassanids are as capable as they were in OTL, then we could see an abrupt ending of the Roman "golden age" as the Sassanids overrun the east at the same time as the Germans are savaging the west under Marcus Aurelius. Earlier third century crisis?

Just some food for thought.
 
If you have abit of a roman wank you could see the building of roman fortifications ( perhaps in an alternate timeline the first instance of true castles?? ) across the zagros mountains defending mesopotamia, and through possible intergration mesopotamia could pay for itself and perhaps more, with persia pacified the empire could concentrate more so on germanian defence?
 
If you have abit of a roman wank you could see the building of roman fortifications ( perhaps in an alternate timeline the first instance of true castles?? ) across the zagros mountains defending mesopotamia, and through possible intergration mesopotamia could pay for itself and perhaps more, with persia pacified the empire could concentrate more so on germanian defence?

That was basically what I was thinking.
 
Yeah I could see =] perhaps you could go as far as causing the Empire to split in two earlier, and with butterflies you could have an orthodox middle east, placing the byzantines in a far stronger position, but with more manpower concentrated in the west the west may survive as a puppet or something??
 
Now for the PoD: 'Trajan lives longer and is followed by a series of competent Caesars' perhaps?

Ideas and thoughts are welcome.
 
The Romans had no interest in Hibernia, and the German north will still flood down eventually.

Actually, there is an argument that it was originally intended that Chester be the capital of a province covering the British Isles. The Amphitheater and other public buildings are rather on the large side for a simple garrison town. I think that it was the Boadicean revolt that put this plan to rest. However, if a St. Patrick analogue were to arrive in the 4th-5th Century, cross the Hibernia and convert the Irish, maybe Hibernia offers to join the Empire as a client state?

The loss of the Eastern border and Scottish border leads to more troops to defend the German border, and maybe even the vassalisation of the tribes between the Rhine and Elbe?
 
As a continuation on my above post, who else was in a position to succeed Marcus Aurelius and become the 'Sixth Good Emperor'. Obviously Commodus was not a good choice as he was neurotic, psychotic, egotist twat. His reign effectively marked the beginning of the decline of Rome and ended the series of adoptive Emperors IMHO. What were the possibilities for Aurelius's succession apart from Commodus?
 
You have a point, but though the Parthians were indeed the most capable foe of the Republic/Early Empire, they never came close to replicating the successes of the Sassanids- sacking Antioch, capturing Valerian, and so on and so forth. However, I can see a problem with this POD- I think it's quite likely that with the chaos that Parthia would certainly fall into following a permanent loss of Mesopotamia, the Sassanids could still quite easily rise; and perhaps earlier than in OTL. If this happens, and the Sassanids are as capable as they were in OTL, then we could see an abrupt ending of the Roman "golden age" as the Sassanids overrun the east at the same time as the Germans are savaging the west under Marcus Aurelius. Earlier third century crisis?

Just some food for thought.

Well, the Parthians did succeed in largely replicating the later successes of the Sassanids, overrunning Syria, Judea, Cilicia, and Cappadocia during the wars of the late 40s BC. Granted, this was during a period of civil war in Rome, and they were soon driven out, but the Empire was hardly stable during the Sassanian invasions of the reign of Valerian. Regardless, the Parthians never posed a truly serious threat to Rome.

It would be interesting to speculate that if Mesopotamia had been permanently annexed by Trajan or even by Septimius Severus in the late second century weather any Parthian succesor-state would have had the same political and military strength as the Sassanids. A possible outcome would be the political fragmentation of the Iranian plateau as during the Seleucid decline, into independant satrapies and petty kingdoms such as Media Atropatene, Persis, Parthia, etc. in which case the Roman Empire's eastern frontier would remain secure.

As a continuation on my above post, who else was in a position to succeed Marcus Aurelius and become the 'Sixth Good Emperor'. Obviously Commodus was not a good choice as he was neurotic, psychotic, egotist twat. His reign effectively marked the beginning of the decline of Rome and ended the series of adoptive Emperors IMHO. What were the possibilities for Aurelius's succession apart from Commodus?

Pertinax of course, and probably the Syrian new man, Claudius Pompeianus who had married into the imperial family and was later twice offered the purple.
 
Another option is a surviving Avidius Cassius. If there is no rumour M. Aurelius has died, he doesn't declare himslef emperor and is not forced to kill himself.
 
Now for the PoD: 'Trajan lives longer and is followed by a series of competent Caesars' perhaps?

Ideas and thoughts are welcome.

Hadrian abandoned Mesopotamia within two years after it was conquered by Trajan, mainly because the area was too indefensible from the Levant. Two years. Roman Mesopotamia existed from 116 to 118. I have trouble believing that any Roman emperor could have held Mesopotamia. It just wasn't logistically feasible.
 
Top