Is it possible, with PODs at any preferable time, to have the Romans conquer all land (Parhia/Sassanid Empire) up to the river Indus?
All the way to the Indus River
- Thread starter Jan Gronvik
- Start date
A Roman general with the charisma and ambition of Alexander the Great, maybe, but the Roman Republic/Empire? Nah.
Well it should be possible to conquer, maybe through persian dynastic strife - which was a typical way to conquer or succesfully invade an Iranian realm. However i can't think of a way anything west of the Zagros could effectively be held, but Mesopotamia could propably become a roman province. Maybe look into how the Uumayad Caliphate adminstered there empire, as the main problem to me seems to be distance, but also the persian hostillity towards the romans - something which didn't seem all that prevelant during the Selucid period of Iran. But to conquer the iranian plateau the romans have to enlarge there cavalry, and they would need to be able to field most of their armies for the initial occupation, something that would be extremely difficult considering the Rhine-Danube border.
Furry Fractal Multitude
Banned
This needs a convergent timeline. Otherwise, it sounds like the Aliens and Magic stuff.
Let's see however. My Convergence timeline about Neanderthals (at least half Neanderthals) and Ainu being more dominant in Asia, and the Sikkimese (Lepcha) unification of India, does have some aspects to change the state of affairs in Iran and Central Asia.
That could however, lead to a brief annexation of the region upto the Indus Valley, by the Romans. But they will not be able to hold on to it.
Let's see however. My Convergence timeline about Neanderthals (at least half Neanderthals) and Ainu being more dominant in Asia, and the Sikkimese (Lepcha) unification of India, does have some aspects to change the state of affairs in Iran and Central Asia.
That could however, lead to a brief annexation of the region upto the Indus Valley, by the Romans. But they will not be able to hold on to it.
According to Wikipedia, Crassus had the following troops at his disposal at Carrhae:
36,000–43,000 men
Crassus refused the offer /.../."
Would the additional 40,000 troops and the Armeninan route have turned the defeat into a victory?
If so, a second POD could be for Julius Caesar to live longer and go through with his plans to invade Parthia, building on the victory of Crassus.
36,000–43,000 men
- 28,000–35,000 legionaries
- 4,000 cavalry
- 4,000 light infantry
Crassus refused the offer /.../."
Would the additional 40,000 troops and the Armeninan route have turned the defeat into a victory?
If so, a second POD could be for Julius Caesar to live longer and go through with his plans to invade Parthia, building on the victory of Crassus.
I doubt Crassus would have much succes, he was never all that impressive of a commander, whatever opportunities that may present themselves Crassus would likely either missuse them or fail to act. If Armenia got in the mix, roman cassualties would likely be lighter, but Armenia would be much easier to conquer for the Parthians after having bested their armies on the battlefield - i do however think Crassus would have the sense to withdraw after several defeats. However that is not an option for Armenia.
Ceasar on the other hand i do believe could wage a succesful campaign in Mesopotamia, however i don't see the Romans going farther than that, maybe sacking Susa and loosing it shortly afterwards. The problem with this is with the almost unavoidable power vacume of Ceasars death (he was getting old), civil war would ensue after his death and so the Parthians would be able to reconquer Mesopotamia with relative ease. If Augustus comes out on top, he would likely be more interested in expanding the frontier to the Elbe river, rather than the Coprates - it could however mean that roman Syria would be compensated, being around the size it was pre Third Century Crisis would certainly bolster the roman economy.
I think your best bet for an expanded roman east, is maybe if the Selucids lasted another 50 years in the east, roman succeses in the east almost correlate perfectly with were Hellenization was at its best. If Antiochus IV would be content with Egypt as a tributary and focus on the Iranian territories he could likely stem the tide for several years - moreover his succesful conquest of Egypt indicates he was a rather competent general. If Iran had seen further Hellenization, the romans would not face nearly as much local resistance and would have local elites supporting their armies on the way.
This or having a roman correlation of Alexander inherit the roman empire, people with tactical wizardry, have changed the course of history time and time again. Even though reason would suggest overextension would rip some empires apart, the Mongols and turks, Ming and Qing, Abbasid and Ummayad, Selucid and of course the Romans themselves, manage to stay together despite their emense size, range of cultures and religions for a remarkbly long time.