Alexander did it, with luck no doubt. Is there any specific timeframe the Romans could have succeeded in their struggles against the east? Maybe a temporary conquest or thorough devastation.
How succesful can the Romans be against the Persian/Parthians?
- Thread starter Hierophant
- Start date
Firstly, nice user title. 
Secondly, a Roman army operating on the Iranian plateau is pushing the limits of feasibility, but isn't absolutely ASB. I'd say a lasting Roman conquest of Iran is probably too far a stretch for an Empire that depended being based around the Mediterranean Sea, though. My view is that a best-case-scenario for Rome in the East is to hold Mesopotamia and Armenia for maybe a century or two, about a sort of time analogous to Dacia, before retreating to the Empire's more "natural" frontiers in Assyria and the upper Euphrates.
Secondly, a Roman army operating on the Iranian plateau is pushing the limits of feasibility, but isn't absolutely ASB. I'd say a lasting Roman conquest of Iran is probably too far a stretch for an Empire that depended being based around the Mediterranean Sea, though. My view is that a best-case-scenario for Rome in the East is to hold Mesopotamia and Armenia for maybe a century or two, about a sort of time analogous to Dacia, before retreating to the Empire's more "natural" frontiers in Assyria and the upper Euphrates.
According to Adrian Goldsworthy, a fully deployed Roman army with adequate auxilia, a capable general etc was quite capable of withstanding and defeating a Parthian or Persian force in battle. The problem was more the severe terrain of Parthia, as well as the enormous logistical train required being vulnerable to cavalry raids.
Abhakhazia
Banned
The question is not "could they do it" but "why would they want to?". Other than Mesopotamia, the Parthian Empire was not particularly useful-mainly just desert or dry, flat plateau. There's not much they would want there, except for maybe trade routes to India.
Seraphiel
Banned
The why factor can be overcome by glory of conquest, if conquerors went with logical practical reasons their probally wouldnt even be many conquerors.
Now Rome could have defeated and conquered Parthia but as someone already said the supply lines are just to long and the gain to little to hold on to Persia, Rome would probaly withdraw within 50 years or so.
No the why cannot be overcome with "glory of conquest", Glory of conquest is worth jack shit in terms of actual reasons to take things. That is just about the most pop-history bull I've seen on this site and its just plain wrong. Conquerors, (atleast sane ones) almost always conquered because there is some kind of monetary or strategic reason to do so, this is why very powerful strong empires rarely go on a conquering binge, warfare in general and especially conquest is something thats undertaken with purpose and a plan for what it gives their empire. Also you are really undervaluing the Iranian Plateu in terms of territory, it was probably one of the richest areas in the world OTL and you are simply handwaving it away. To explain how wrong in picture that analysis is just look at these:
For perspective Iranian states where some of the fiercest rivals Rome ever faced in her entire history and it was a valuable territory to rule over (its why it ended up being the stomping ground of almost every major nomadic group in history). Mainly I think that the issue is that Parthia could both resist conquest (if not fight into roman territory much of the time) and Rome had no logistical capability to rule over them.
So, Anatolia, but worse (not in that part, but looking at a map).
Which is to say, what do you gain by taking it that's worth the expense? Very little.
The extent to which it was rich was, in a word, artificial - look what happened when the nomads broke the agricultural systems and sacked the cities.
It being the stomping grounds of so many nomads isn't really a convincing argument that it was super valuable.
Which is to say, what do you gain by taking it that's worth the expense? Very little.
The extent to which it was rich was, in a word, artificial - look what happened when the nomads broke the agricultural systems and sacked the cities.
It being the stomping grounds of so many nomads isn't really a convincing argument that it was super valuable.
Anatolia itself is a pretty valuable piece of land, and I agree the conquest itself is a terrible idea, I just think they where underselling the place quite a bit, essentially before the Islamic conquest it was a very major power in the world and even afterwards it had the capability to be a hefty regional power.
Not that valuable, though. It's an arid plataeu with a thin strip along the western coast (mostly just the western coast, at least) that's fairly fertile for the Mediterranean.
I agree that Iran isn't valueless - far from it - but it's not a place I'd eagerly take if I had better options, like India.
Speaking from the position of being able to take either, if it came up, there.
But yeah, the Iranian plataeu supported many significant empires.
Abhakhazia
Banned
It's not valueless, more so that it would be extremely difficult to control, along with the vast territories in Gaul, Britain, Spain and Germany.
Unambiguously.
Even for the Ottomans, who were facing an Iran considerably weaker relative to them than the Romans did, Mesopotamia was a lot.
Abhakhazia
Banned
I see. The old "client states" method extended to India, with Roman trading colonies/legionary barracks intermixed? I guess that would make sense.
I'm not sure that would work either. Rome at its OTL commitments is biting off a lot.
Seraphiel
Banned
No the why cannot be overcome with "glory of conquest", Glory of conquest is worth jack shit in terms of actual reasons to take things. That is just about the most pop-history bull I've seen on this site and its just plain wrong. Conquerors, (atleast sane ones) almost always conquered because there is some kind of monetary or strategic reason to do so, this is why very powerful strong empires rarely go on a conquering binge, warfare in general and especially conquest is something thats undertaken with purpose and a plan for what it gives their empire. Also you are really undervaluing the Iranian Plateu in terms of territory, it was probably one of the richest areas in the world OTL and you are simply handwaving it away. To explain how wrong in picture that analysis is just look at these:
For perspective Iranian states where some of the fiercest rivals Rome ever faced in her entire history and it was a valuable territory to rule over (its why it ended up being the stomping ground of almost every major nomadic group in history). Mainly I think that the issue is that Parthia could both resist conquest (if not fight into roman territory much of the time) and Rome had no logistical capability to rule over them.
I fully realize how rich Iran the glory of conquest thing was mainly a half reason to explain without going into such detail as you did on Iran, i replied to a post that specifically said tjat Iran was useless to the Romans.
One might think that Rome might at first try only to establish and hold a few bridgeheads from the seaside (i.e. ports).
But here I am immediately at a loss. Did the Romans have ports on the lower Euphrates or Tigris that would allow for departures to the Persian Gulf? Were there significant port-cities on the Persian side of the Gulf? Were the dwellers of the Western/Southern shore of the Gulf seafarers, and what should be expected from them?
But here I am immediately at a loss. Did the Romans have ports on the lower Euphrates or Tigris that would allow for departures to the Persian Gulf? Were there significant port-cities on the Persian side of the Gulf? Were the dwellers of the Western/Southern shore of the Gulf seafarers, and what should be expected from them?
A few bridgeheads from the seaside is not practical given how far those are frmo anywhere Rome holds securely for any definition thereof.
Not this means trying to take more is. Rome did do well vs. Persia - the only sense it wasn't pretty successful was in the sense of total conquest.
'To be more accurate', the region you're describing should not be referred to as "Persia" at all, even if it was part of Eranshahr.