WI : The Romans bankrolled a Tanukhid Arabia

GdwnsnHo

Banned
Pretty much as the OP - rather than have someone like Emperor Valens try to convert them - instead offer them support to conquer the rest of Arabia.

Could the Tanukhids unite Arabia backed by Roman coin? Could they then be trusted to stay allied with the Romans against the Sassanids?

Would these Christian Soldiers provide the long-term allies the Romans would need to hold Mesopotamia?
 
How much coin could the Romans afford to sink into Arabia?
The Sassanids had their own powerful Arab allies, the Lakhmids, and Rome / Byzantium had various Arabian allies, too. They proved to be significant, but not overwhelmingly decisive in the Roman-Sassanid wars.

I´ve been putting some effort into considering such options, too, for my Alexandria-based Roman split-off republic of the 3rd century CE ff.
The temporary conclusion I´ve come to is:
To unite (pre-modern) Arabia, you need a powerbase both among the clans of the desert, and in the relatively fertile South, which was of utmost maritime importance for Mediterranean-Indian trade. The first to achieve this were the Muslims, and the example shows that a unified Arabia is unlikely to be just Rome`s puppet.
Everything else will be temporary and fragile, as OTL`s Roman-Arabian alliances were, too. There`ll always be someone who is willing and able to fight for Roman money, and there`ll always be someone else who is willing and able to fight against the Romans for Sassanid money.
A strong federation only in Northern/Central Arabia, which could not stand by itself economically and thus depended on a partner like the Romans, sounds tempting, but what would keep them from meddling farther South, where Sabaeans, Himyarites, Hadramautians and even Aksumite vassals quarrelled with each other and where half-decent land and a lot of wealth was to be gained?
 

GdwnsnHo

Banned
How much coin could the Romans afford to sink into Arabia?

At this point, quite a bit - prior to the Roman-Sassanid Wars the east was pretty bloody wealthy - divert some of that wealth. I'll have to look into some more discrete numbers though. Might be worthwhile to levy a small tax (say for the privilege of religious freedom? Roman-Jizya? :D ) They would probably be able to afford to reduce army numbers if it went to plan, as the Tanukids would protect their long desert border - long term savings there in exchange for the short term costs.

The Sassanids had their own powerful Arab allies, the Lakhmids, and Rome / Byzantium had various Arabian allies, too. They proved to be significant, but not overwhelmingly decisive in the Roman-Sassanid wars.

The Lakamids and Ghassanids were really only in N.Arabia, and as a result had much lower manpower and less wealth than a client state / friendly Christian power across Arabia. That would be a much more powerful ally to have.

I´ve been putting some effort into considering such options, too, for my Alexandria-based Roman split-off republic of the 3rd century CE ff.
The temporary conclusion I´ve come to is:
To unite (pre-modern) Arabia, you need a powerbase both among the clans of the desert, and in the relatively fertile South, which was of utmost maritime importance for Mediterranean-Indian trade. The first to achieve this were the Muslims, and the example shows that a unified Arabia is unlikely to be just Rome`s puppet.

I'd agree with most of this, but the important thing is that the Tanukids, apart from being long-term Foederati, if there is no reason for their revolt due to Valens - have had good long term relations with Rome, which is also Christian. The Tanukids were notably zealotic. I would expect them to prefer to ally with Christian Rome rather than the Zoroastrian Persians. They aren't likely to be a puppet forever - but certainly have a joint interest in corralling the Persians in their long term geopolitical strategy. Even if they did have to fight a war and split spoils, Rome may want Mesopotamia - but if the Tanukids get the coast and control of the Spice Trade - that is a pretty good deal for both sides there. In addition - if they are powerful enough, they could certainly reach a diplomatic arrangement where the Patriarch of Jerusalem leads their church - and is part of the Pentarchy, linking them to the Emperor in a religious organisation.

Everything else will be temporary and fragile, as OTL`s Roman-Arabian alliances were, too. There`ll always be someone who is willing and able to fight for Roman money, and there`ll always be someone else who is willing and able to fight against the Romans for Sassanid money.

Hence the Tanukids, relgiously devout/zealotic - and tied to the Christian Emperor. That combined with long term trade, there can be long term co-existence there, and the Tanukids can focus on expansion over the seas, without having to fight their major trade partner. A lot of beneficial ties that make cutting them and fighting for territory reckless and likely to cause rebellion with the wrong cause.

A strong federation only in Northern/Central Arabia, which could not stand by itself economically and thus depended on a partner like the Romans, sounds tempting, but what would keep them from meddling farther South, where Sabaeans, Himyarites, Hadramautians and even Aksumite vassals quarrelled with each other and where half-decent land and a lot of wealth was to be gained?

That was kind of my point - The Romans might intervene for a diplomatic solution regarding Aksum, or take over Aksum in Africa whilst the Tanukids take Arabia - but you'd have the Tanukids standing on their own once they had that. Strong, but not as strong as a Rome that isn't exhausting themselves on Roman-Persian wars of futility. It'd probably be a 2nd rate power until it focused on the Indian Ocean - where it would thrive.

Now is it destined to be happy forever, unlikely - there could certainly be a war or series of wars if either side becomes particularly dogmatic (hence why I'd rather the Pentarchy included a pro-Tanukid member, more likely to promote pluralism that way). Even if the Romans consider it a bad decision in the long term to pay the Arabs to unite, they wouldn't suffer the loss of Syria and Egypt ITTL, which makes it a pretty good opportunity cost.

Now the logistics of the Tanukid Conquest of Arabia is a question I haven't considered, so that would certainly be something to think of.
 
The story of this Arabia might be well worth reading!
One question, though: there were Christian kingdoms between Romans and Sassanids further North: Armenia, and a few in the Caucasus. They turned out to be rather more a source for contention and pretext for war rather than effective buffers...
In the end, I fear that if the general traits of the Roman and the Sassanid Empires remain unchanged, they`ll jump at each other`s throats every other while, regardless of what second-tier powers lie between them...
 

GdwnsnHo

Banned
The story of this Arabia might be well worth reading!
One question, though: there were Christian kingdoms between Romans and Sassanids further North: Armenia, and a few in the Caucasus. They turned out to be rather more a source for contention and pretext for war rather than effective buffers...
In the end, I fear that if the general traits of the Roman and the Sassanid Empires remain unchanged, they`ll jump at each other`s throats every other while, regardless of what second-tier powers lie between them...

In my mind, the difference between those polities and a Tanukid Arabia is both age (Armenia has a long and complex history) - and geography.

All those polities has plenty of reasons to shift either side - the Tanukids not so much.

All those polities have defensible borders in and against their favour - the Roman-Arabian-Persian border is porous desert - both Roman and Persian are vulnerable to Arabian actions, and the inverse is true if the Romans or Persians develop decent desert cavalry forces.

None of those polities has the resources that a Tanukid Arabia would have - the southern lands can grow food, they have trade routes galore for imports and money. - and therefore don't NEED to play or be played in power politics like the Caucasian states.

The scenarios are similar, but different enough to change the rules. IMO.

I need to get some books on the topic...
 
Top