How did the Roman Empire never try to fully annex Persian empire,

>>2244878

To much land to govern

>>2244878
They sacked an administrative center that the Persian kings liked to use to control taxes and trade in Mesopotamia. Actually crossing the Zagros mountains and taking the Iranian plateau proper is a far more difficult problem, one which would severely challenge Roman logistics due to a lack of navigable rivers and coasts to ship in troops and supplies.

>>2244878

If Alexander could do it, it's technically possible. It would be a nightmare, and you'd need so many troops that Europe would be defenceless. And then the money and supplies you need.

It's easier just to fuck some slaves in your villa.

>>2244909
The way Alexander and the Arabs managed to conquer Persia was to crush the ruling dynasty completely, then mop up or make deals with each individual satrapy that was basically its own kingdom without a shah they cared for.

Alexander destroyed Darius III and ibn Abi Waqqas destroyed Yazdegerd III by humiliating them in battle after battle, then moved into Iran proper before someone could reconsolidate the dynasty.

>>2244940
Persians should just avoid "Thirds" in general.

>>2244961
Hilariously true. The last Safavid shah was Abbas III.

>>2244878

The Roman Empire's economy was centered around boat travel; if it wasn't accessible from either the Mediterranean, or a boat that could be sailed up a river from the Mediterranean, it probably wasn't worth having.


The Romans could sack the Parthians or later the Sassanids, but they couldn't really economically integrate it, rendering conquest more or less useless.

>>2244878
I don't know why idiots think annexing someone is as easy as just conquering him. The military conquest is actually the easy part.

At some point the romans literally stopped researching administrative tech. This capped their borders at more or less their historical max. Once they stopped being able to expand it was all downhill from there.