Thread replies: 4
Thread images: 2
Thread images: 2
File: E1BC8CC6-E1CE-4CAE-91E212FED738AB23.jpg (258KB, 778x511px) Image search:
[Google]
258KB, 778x511px
So how come the Romans were never able to conquer Parthia? It seems like a combination of invasions tending to happen at inopportune times (i.e. someone like Crassus, Antony or Caracalla going to war for glory during politically turbulent times), getting easily deceived by duplicitous locals or just being happy with a quick sack of Ctesiphon. Would Caesar's attempted invasion have gone any different if he had avoided his assassination or would it have ended in failure as well?
And for a bit of alt-history, what happens if Rome actually does manage to conquer Parthia? I believe Caesar then wanted to deal with the steppe people before ultimately conquering Germania but is that where later rulers would have ended it or whould they have tried expanding further? What if Trajan hadn't died or Hadrian hadn't pussied out on the conquests in Persia, Armenia and Dacia?
>>
>>2492772
>So how come the Romans were never able to conquer Parthia?
Because it's one thing to launch an expedition and sack an important city or two. But to conquer and eliminate, you need not only to project force but to be able to reliably sustain force in whatever area you want to conquer. Parthia was really far away, especially since despite the fame the roads get, the Roman Republic and Empire was really centered around the Mediterranean and the sea access they could get from it, as well as what navigable rivers they could travel along for places like what's now France's and Spain's interiors.
Getting to Iran is much harder, and you'll have to haul all your gear and supplies by land. Maybe they could have pushed over a weak confederation on the level of the 1st century Germanic tribes under those conditions, but not a group as large and organized as the Parthians, let alone the Sassanids.
>Would Caesar's attempted invasion have gone any different if he had avoided his assassination or would it have ended in failure as well?
I'm guessing, but I imagine it would have gone similar to their other successful attacks. Caesar moves in with his troops, fights a bunch of skirmishes and then one or two pitched battles, sacks somewhere nice and full of loot, and then realizes that it's either go back with what you've got or stay here for the next 50 years, and choose the former.
>And for a bit of alt-history, what happens if Rome actually does manage to conquer Parthia?
I imagine they spend more money than it's worth continually putting down revolts until they just eventually go "fuck it" and leave the area.
>>
Because of the Zagros and Alborz mountain ranges coupled with a lack of year round navigable waterways to allow Roman logistics the ability to march and maintain several legions into Persian Iraq and beyond. It'd be like expecting the Parthians to invade Italy with any chance of success.
>>
File: Parthians.jpg (135KB, 547x732px) Image search:
[Google]
135KB, 547x732px
>>2492772
Romans can't cavalry to save their fucking lives.
Thread posts: 4
Thread images: 2
Thread images: 2