Rome in Mesopotamia

[spacedragonblue]

To my knowledge, the Roman empire at one time contained Mesopotamia.

This area later switched hands between Rome and the Parthians repeatedly

(see note on Mesopotamia in this image)

I was wondering if anyone knew of any marks of Rome's presence (ruins, etc.) in Mesopotamia (now Iraq).

 

[Plotinus]

I believe that Rome's power never extended further than Nisibis, which is now in Turkey. The Romans attacked Hatra but never took it. So I'm not sure how many Roman ruins you'd find in Iraq.

 

[Mongoloid Cow]

There is very little presence of Roman rule in Mesopotamia as they only ruled it for a short few years under the Emperor Trajan. Dura-Europus has some Roman remains from what I've heard. Roman influence can also be found in the green part of Mesopotamia on the second map you posted, in cities such as Edessa (not shown).

 

[Xen]

Roman power generally ended in Hatra and Dura-Europus, both fo which were major Roman centers, that with a few turnarounds that were always reversed until the Byzantines (who also gained them back for a significant period) were the clear markers of Roman control in the area.

 

[Riesstiu IV]

You guys forget that several Roman emperors besides Trajan extended rule into Mesopotamia. Septimius Severus actually annexed much of modern day east Iraq. I've provided a link for the Roman Empire under the Severan dynasty. Civil war in the Parthian realm between brothers and rival kings Vologaeses VI and Artabanus V brought instability to the entire region and allowed Rome to keep Mesopotamia for some time.

http://www.roman-emperors.org/big200.htm

 

[spacedragonblue]

fascinating, as history always is. I just was checking, I was already pretty sure they had a light prescence

 

[Mongoloid Cow]

You guys forget that several Roman emperors besides Trajan extended rule into Mesopotamia. Septimius Severus actually annexed much of modern day east Iraq. I've provided a link for the Roman Empire under the Severan dynasty. Civil war in the Parthian realm between brothers and rival kings Vologaeses VI and Artabanus V brought instability to the entire region and allowed Rome to keep Mesopotamia for some time.

http://www.roman-emperors.org/big200.htm

Still, the Romans did not have the time to leave an age-lasting impression, which they certainly did at Edessa, Dura-Europus, etc.

 

[Rambuchan]

@ spacedragonblue: Nice one!

As a little aside, I've been swimming in beautiful Roman calcium spring baths near Ephesos, Turkey, Pamukalle to be precise. You get a real sense of Roman lifestyle here. The bathing culture, the meandering springs, walking on 2000 year old marble slabs, Roman sense of health care, the mountainous lay of the land stretching further inland across to Anatolia and the heart of Mesopotamia, the blend of Greek architectural styles and so much else. Ah!

 

[Stefan Haertel]

Mesopotamia was under Roman control for a very short time, from 115 to 118 AD. The territories proved to be unholdable, so emperor Hadrianus withdrew from them.
I believe there is very little archaeological evidence of that time, as the occupation was of purely military nature. The areas were already highly "civilized" and, to a certain extent, were mostly Greek-influenced areas, so there is virtually nothing the Romans could have done there. The necessary infrastructures already existed, and it would have taken decades to establish some sort of sustainable Roman influence there.

 

[Xen]

Mesopotamia was under Roman control for a very short time, from 115 to 118 AD. The territories proved to be unholdable, so emperor Hadrianus withdrew from them.

Not entirelly true; they were only unholdable for the situation present that Hadrian walked into when he became EMperor; unrest in many Jewish Populations in the eastern med sea, and the possibility of co-ordination between Mesopotamian rebels, and Judean rebels was not a very likeable prospect; if the eastern med sea Jewish populations (no indication that european or western med sea Jewish communities were any state of unrest at all) then its very likelly that Mesopotamia woudl have been kept.

I believe there is very little archaeological evidence of that time, as the occupation was of purely military nature. The areas were already highly "civilized" and, to a certain extent, were mostly Greek-influenced areas, so there is virtually nothing the Romans could have done there. The necessary infrastructures already existed, and it would have taken decades to establish some sort of sustainable Roman influence there.

not really; to estbalish a sustainable Roman military influence (which is how any Roman influence starts) woudl have taken around a month; the infastructure was, as you said, intact, and it woudl tak elittler effort to re-orginize the shipments of supllies once used by the Parthians for new Roman Garrisons; Roman building projects, combined with what was likelly to have been a bloodyhanded policy in Mesopotamia at the first hint of Rebellion would be likelly to pacify the local population, or convince them that resistence is futile, and lsowlly, as with Gual, Spain, Africa,Macedonia, ect.. that Roman rule wasnt a bad thing for the local peoples.

 

[Takhisis]

not really; to estbalish a sustainable Roman military influence (which is how any Roman influence starts) woudl have taken around a month; the infastructure was, as you said, intact, and it woudl tak elittler effort to re-orginize the shipments of supllies once used by the Parthians for new Roman Garrisons; Roman building projects, combined with what was likelly to have been a bloodyhanded policy in Mesopotamia at the first hint of Rebellion would be likelly to pacify the local population, or convince them that resistence is futile, and lsowlly, as with Gual, Spain, Africa,Macedonia, ect.. that Roman rule wasnt a bad thing for the local peoples.

It´s not that simple, depends on the place. Gaul wasn´t conquered easily, and the Alpine region wasn´t completely subdued until the Imperial Age.
When you had religious matters, such as drudic preaching, the final Carthaginian defence in the name of Baal, or the Zoroastrian persecutions, it´s not that easy.

 

[Xen]

1)all of gual was conqored, pacified, and whole sale added to the Repblic/Empire in 10 years, and resulted in a peaceful and loyal province for the next 5 centuries; like wise, alpine conquest wasnt hindered by culture or trouble of conquest (indeed, it proved to be specatucularylly easy for the Roman army, combined with political pressures) it was politics; Rome had needed the apline natiosn as buffer states agianst the guals, so that any invasions wouldnt go to Roman territory directlly

Druidism was stamped out, as was the cult of Baal in fell swoops; religions liek christianity, Judiasm, Zororastrianism werent because they were never viewed as actual threats to Roman culture.

 

[LLXerxes]

I know it extended as far as Babylon, but the first map is wrong.
Rome never conquered Scythia. They invaded and barely came back alive. I doubt power extended out to the Persian Gulf.
Didn't the Byzantines extend into Mesopotamia?

 

[Xen]

1)care to tell me when the Romans where kicked out of Scythia? COnsiderign the Romans defeated the Skythians, or rather, thier more powerful counterparts, the Sarmatians, on many occasions, and the fact that kingdom fo the Bosporus was at varying times very much a part of the Roman empire, your dead wrong on this account.

2)Roman power did indeed under the righn of trajan extend all the way to the persian gulf; it was only an internal rebellion of the Asiatic and east african jewish communities, and a frim defencive mindset under hadrian anyway that lead to the possesions not beign kept (some people will argue that Rome over extendned itself; my resposne is that Trajan likelly woudl have just created new legions, as he did to win, and keep Dacia, in order to keep these holdings)

3)Under the reign of Heraclius the Byzantines marched into mesoptamia, and brought the Neo-Persian empire to its knees, installing a puppet ruler on its throne; then the arabs came, and took advantage of a Byzantium and Persia weaked by centuies of infighting that culmitaed in that titanic war.

 

[Mongoloid Cow]

Actually, the first map shows the Bosporan Kingdom which the Romans did conquer (it was ruled be the descendants of Mithridates VI the Great of Pontus, who was one of the most dangerous opponents of Rome in BC times). Scythia was the territory immediately beyond it

 

[LLXerxes]

Actually, the first map shows the Bosporan Kingdom which the Romans did conquer (it was ruled be the descendants of Mithridates VI the Great of Pontus, who was one of the most dangerous opponents of Rome in BC times). Scythia was the territory immediately beyond it

I read a book on Mithridates IV... good book
I thought the Bosporan kingdom was abandoned by pontics as they tried to re-conquer Pontus? And I know somebody got routed in Scythia, must have been the greeks. But I've never heard of the Roman empire in Scythia or the Bosporus.

 

[Xen]

But I've never heard of the Roman empire in Scythia or the Bosporus.

you never hear abou tthe Romans in Bithnia, Pannonia, or Malta either, but it dosent mean they werent partsof the empire; the main reson they get no attention si because A)no political entity of importance to the west is located in the area (its only some ex-soviet state, after all), or the speficics just arnt well known.

indeed, thats the fate of Illyria, a province whos rebellion is the real cause of the Roman reversal in Germany (until Marcus aurelius, who conqoured significant portions of germany, well into the czech republic, in terms of northward expansion- but commodus failed to either consolodate, or follow up on these victories rendering them null)

 

[Mongoloid Cow]

I read a book on Mithridates IV... good book
I thought the Bosporan kingdom was abandoned by pontics as they tried to re-conquer Pontus? And I know somebody got routed in Scythia, must have been the greeks. But I've never heard of the Roman empire in Scythia or the Bosporus.

The Romans made no serious attempt to conquer Scythia or Sarmatia from what I know. As for the routing in Scythia, you are probably thinking of Darius the Great of Persia's invasion, or some minor intrusion I've never heard about. After Darius, no one made any real attempt to spread their power to the Ukraine.

When Pontus was finally being defeated by Rome, Mithridates VI's son (Pharnaces? I'm not good with names) fled to the Bosporus and made peace with Rome. He kept ruling there although the Romans took Pontus. Eventually the Romans established a protectorate over the Bosporus and then annexed it outright. The Bosporus was never an important territory of the Roman Empire (although it was an important source of grain). It was abandoned when the Huns made headway and the Taurasian Ostrogoths eventually settled there and took it over.

 

[Kyriakos]

Is it really called Bosporus? The part of modern day Ukraine, where the cities of Cherson and Theodosia were. Bosporos(Bosporus) is the common name of the sea which begins to the west in the hellespond, and through the opening at Constantinople reaches the black sea.

 

[Mongoloid Cow]

It was called the Bosporus. Think of the Bosporus and the Bosporus as Ionia and the Ionian Islands. Same / similar name but entirely different places. Today, the Bosporus (the one in Ukraine) is called the Crimea (after the Krym Mongols IIRC). The sea between the Hellespont and Istanbul is also called the Sea of Marmara IIRC.