The Great Parthian War

[Amenhotep7]

Suppose Caesar somehow survived the Ides of March. Perhaps he recognized his conspirators, or came in with a whole bunch of lawyers, prefects, and bodyguards that day the senators planned to kill him. Caesar at this time was drawing up the final plans for a war against Parthia. The reason? Because Crassus, Caesar's old friend, had been killed in diplomatic negotiations by them. Well, now that we have established that somehow Caesar survived the Ides of March, We can conclude that the war with Parthia was to commence. It was at this time that the Roman army was the strongest relative to the other nations surrounding it, so it would seem that the annexation of Parthia was inevitable. Yet, you history buffs may be able to credibly say otherwise.

My question is, would the result of the "Great Parthian War" be a Roman or Parthian victory, and if it ended up as a Roman victory, would it hinder Rome's collapse, since there is a lack of Eastern enemies?

 

[Mongoloid Cow]

I'd go with a Parthian victory. Rome had not yet any experience with dealing with nomadic armies and empires, and Parthia had set up 'traps' just in case an invasion came. Parthia on the other hand did have experience with sedentary empires and armies, and knew their weaknesses very well.

 

[Mongoloid Cow]

Also, at this time, Parthia was gifted with great rulers starting with the 7-year reign of the 90-year old Sinatruces in 77BC (and I'm not joking, somehow that old guy became one of Parthia's greatest rulers), and Parthia also had at that time great successes against the Sacae and Yue-Chi in the east, meaning that Parthia could focus entirely on Rome.

 

[Pangur Bán]

I don't agree that Rome was strongest relative to its neighbours at this point. I think that came later on. Both Trajan and Septimius Severus effectively conquered Parthia. That did not mean, though, that annexation would follow.

And what actually happened when the Severans defeated Parthia was that the credibility of the Parthian monarchy was destroyed and they were replaced by the Sassanians. It might have been better for Rome to just leave the Parthians alone.

 

[Stefan Haertel]

Calgacus: Define "effectively conquered Parthia". Traianus was successful in his Parthian campaign in Mesopotamia. But shortly after his death, Hadrian had to give up the three new provinces (Mesopotamia, Assyria and Armenia) because they were impossible to hold.

Aside from that, the rise of the Sasanians did not arise from the Arsacid defeat against the Romans, but from the Sasanians themselves. The Sasanians did not really care for Rome at first (I doubt they even knew precisely what happened there, or otherwise they wouldn't have attacked Rome so boldly from the beginning on), what they wanted was freedom for Persia, and to make sure, they simply removed the Arsacid domination.

 

[Pangur Bán]

Originally posted by Stefan Haertel
Calgacus: Define "effectively conquered Parthia". Traianus was successful in his Parthian campaign in Mesopotamia. But shortly after his death, Hadrian had to give up the three new provinces (Mesopotamia, Assyria and Armenia) because they were impossible to hold.

Impossible to hold?

First I've ever heard that. The reality is that we can only speculate on on why Hadrian abandoned Mesopotamia. It seems to have been part of a general policy of "managable frontiers"

Since you ask, I meant by "effectively conquered Parthia" that they defeated her and could probably have conquered if they wanted.

 

[Amenhotep7]

could probably have conquered if they wanted

Julius Caesar was out for revenge for his dear friend Crassus, so I doubt he would stop at Assyria and Mesopotamia.

 

[Stefan Haertel]

OK, better question. Define "Parthia". You propably mean the Arsacid "empire" (more an array of loyal and lesser loyal principalities), which at that point consisted of Mesopotamia up to Assyria, Armenia, part of Media and Parthia itself. I doubt the Romans would have done that. Things had changed considerably since Alexander the Great (and even he despaired at several times and was nearly defeated). I doubt the Romans would even have dared to push forward to Parthia's outermost frontiers. "Parthia" was not just Mesopotamia.

 

[Pangur Bán]

Indeed no. But both the Arabs and Alexander showed how quickly Persia falls when its royal authority collapsed. I don't see Parthia as better than either the Achaemenids or the Sassanids. The Romans simply chose it wasn't worth following through. The Arabs and Macedonians disagreed.

 

[Amenhotep7]

The Romans simply chose it wasn't worth following through.

But Julius Caesar would have. He was out for revenge!

I doubt the Romans would have done that.

Later Roman leaders? Maybe not. Julius Caesar? Definately.

 

[Mongoloid Cow]

Originally posted by calgacus
Indeed no. But both the Arabs and Alexander showed how quickly Persia falls when its royal authority collapsed. I don't see Parthia as better than either the Achaemenids or the Sassanids. The Romans simply chose it wasn't worth following through. The Arabs and Macedonians disagreed.

The Arsacid dynasty was not an easy thing to get rid of because the Arsacids kept true to some of their nomadic past. It wasn't like you took the capital and you had the ruling dynasty and the Romans didn't have the mobility needed for chasing them across Iran.

Impossible to hold?

First I've ever heard that. The reality is that we can only speculate on on why Hadrian abandoned Mesopotamia. It seems to have been part of a general policy of "managable frontiers"

I've heard that is the reason Hadrian gave up these provinces. I doubt that they were impossible to hold, but they would have been expensive far more their worth.

 

[Knight-Dragon]

Originally posted by Amenhotep7
But Julius Caesar would have. He was out for revenge!

I doubt that Caesar would willingly engage himself in campaigns so far away fr Rome for so long that he'd be swept out of the Roman political scene...

 

[Stefan Haertel]

Indeed no. But both the Arabs and Alexander showed how quickly Persia falls when its royal authority collapsed. I don't see Parthia as better than either the Achaemenids or the Sassanids. The Romans simply chose it wasn't worth following through. The Arabs and Macedonians disagreed.

Let's not discuss Alexander and the Arabs here. If you want to do that elsewhere, I'll be ready to listen

 

[Amenhotep7]

Originally posted by XIII
I doubt that Caesar would willingly engage himself in campaigns so far away fr Rome for so long that he'd be swept out of the Roman political scene...

Ah! Julius Caesar had TONS of supporters. Even though he would be gone, his name would still be heralded in the streets!

 

[Knight-Dragon]

Yes, and I'm sure his political enemies will also sit back and clap their hands...

Not unless Caesar had unquestionably solidified his control of the Roman polity would I see him venturing out any distance to fight a probably long, protracted and risky war against an enemy in hostile territory.

 

[stalin006]

ROMAN victory, no doubt, ofcourse, they would invade, then leave, cus they couldnt stay there, but if they wanted they could win a campaing there.

BTW XIII ur avatar looks kinda hentai to me.

 

[Amenhotep7]

Originally posted by XIII
Yes, and I'm sure his political enemies will also sit back and clap their hands...

Not unless Caesar had unquestionably solidified his control of the Roman polity would I see him venturing out any distance to fight a probably long, protracted and risky war against an enemy in hostile territory.

Had Caesar survived the Ides of March, there is no doubt in my mind he would've had those opponenets in the senate lynched.

 

[Xen]

a few assorted facts-

A)Trajan wasnt just invadeing mesopotamia, he was looking to conqoure all Parthia

B)During the Time of Caesar, the Parthians wer ein the middle of a civil war, in fact, thats what what kept them from launching a counter-strike against the Roman reoublic after the folly of Crassus, th e"convientient" outbreake of a civil war, that said, that was parthias biggest weknes, they were never a fully unified nation, but rather a bunch of kingdoms suervibg one overloard kings (hence the title used thoughout the region for a very long time, the whole "king of kings" type thing) that said, just looking at the amries of the Time, I have no doubt what so ever that the Roman army would have been able to otterlyl chew up any parthian army on plains of mesoptamia, and on the desterts, its about the reverse, the Parthians would have the advantage- but then thats going on the satint by crassus, who I think was one of the worst generals in all Roman history.

C)dont be so sure he would have them lynched Amenhotep, Caesar had forgiven conspitors out to kill him before, and I think he would have done it again, that said, Amenhotpes right, if Ceasar left, the people alone, regardless of his senators being there would have ensured his political continuity there, and the fact that his entire army loved him would ofcourse protect him out on campaign from any conspirtitos that may try to come his way

D)@XIII

Not unless Caesar had unquestionably solidified his control of the Roman polity would I see him venturing out any distance to fight a probably long, protracted and risky war against an enemy in hostile territory.[/qioute] he spent 10 years conqouring Gual, and led a tentative invasion of Britain, and Germany, I think its the direc topposite, that not onle was he both ready, and willing, but also able to do it, given the chance, amd if he acheived to set out what he was going to do in rome before hand

E)as for hadrian, i think he overated anyway, basically, the man needed to mangage, and solidify trajans holding was either trajan himself, or another expansionist emperor- who was willing to, like Trajan, to actualyl go and shell out some money to raise more legions to hold the area, like in the manner Trajan did with Dacia

F)also, it has been said that the area wasnt worth conwouring- i assure you it was, it was after all, only the center of all old word tradeing, as trade routs extended well down Africa, and well up Europe by that time, in addition to the med, middle east, far east trade routes-in fact, the influx of even more cheap grain alone would have been worth conqouring all mesopotamia to get at, regardless of the value of the trade routs gouning through, combine this with the facxt that, locatre on the bordes of desert, and sea, that the area was uniqully suited to be very lendbale for the Romans to be able to tax forign imports, I think the area was more then valubel enough to justfy raising as many legions as needed to have held it

 

[Mongoloid Cow]

Xen, actually there was a Parthian counter attack - they reached as far as Gaza and Ionia!!! The Parthians also had support of some of the legion garrisons and commanders in the east. They had to pull out though when the royal prince in charge was accused of conspiring to kill his father (he was later found innocent and succeeded his father).

 

[Xen]

Immideatley after crassus?