The Parthians

So fellow historians, tell me why the Romans never conquered the Parthians.

When Trajan launched his invasion of Parthia the Invasion was going rather well; the weakened Parthian army didn't stand a chance against the Professional legionaries and relatively good Roman cavalry. Three Roman armier swept agross the river Tigris and river Euphrates.

But Trajan's invasion failed because of the fact that the frontiers of Mesopotamia was very hard to defend against the more mobile Parthian army. Also the Jewish rebellion in Judea, a province that Rome could not afford to lose meant that the Trajan's legions had to withdraw from the conquered parts of the Parthian Empire. But the Trajan's conquest permanently sealed the fate of the incompetent Parthain kings and they were soon replaced by the warmongering Sassanids.

After the Failed invasion the Romans lauched an revenge attack that destroyed the Parthian capitol (or was it seleucia?). But it also brought a plague to Rome.

If the Jewish rebellion would not have happened the Romans could have conquered the whole Persia.

Parthia was not just a small piece of Barbaric land that fit perfectly into the tactics of Roman warfare. it took a very competent general to get good ground on them(as evidenced by Crassus horrendous defeat). Furthermore they were BIG, the only other real empire that the Romans would compete with.

So fellow historians, tell me why the Romans never conquered the Parthians.

I'm not sure if they ever had that idea in their mind, they were more interested in protecting their interests in Armenia; Cassus and Caesar excepted. They were able to successfully defend their frontiers against Parthian incursions, but I think we tend to forget that the Parthians had long periods of peace with Rome as well as treaties that were mutually beneficial. Trajan's attack on Parthia was strated as a direct result of a perceived breach of a treaty over Armenia rather than an intent to conquer

A more interesting question, for me at least, is what Julius Caesar would have done had he not been assassinated and conducted his war against Parthia.

A more interesting question, for me at least, is what Julius Caesar would have done had he not been assassinated and conducted his war against Parthia.

Considering the fact that he at least knew of Marius and his tactics vs. Jugertha, and considering his avid use of siege tactics, my guess is he would take a slow and steady approach. Perhaps like Marius constructing fortification in key areas and isolating all important points to eventually scatter and starve the Parthians and their hungery horses.

Well, there is nothing we can assume. it would have been completely different eviroment from Caesar's work in Gaul. Completely different. Had it occured, the mans genius would have definately been put to work.

A more interesting question, for me at least, is what Julius Caesar would have done had he not been assassinated and conducted his war against Parthia.

 

 

Considering the fact that he at least knew of Marius and his tactics vs. Jugertha, and considering his avid use of siege tactics, my guess is he would take a slow and steady approach. Perhaps like Marius constructing fortification in key areas and isolating all important points to eventually scatter and starve the Parthians and their hungery horses.

I agree it's a good guess that Caesar would have concentrated on limiting foraging resources for the Parthians. More than anyone I think, Caesar had a sixth sense about using the logistics in his area of to his advantage and the detriment of the enemy. And he was never shy about conducting (and succeeding) at seige warfare either.

I would disagree about one thing; slow and study was never his style.

I would disagree about one thing; slow and study was never his style.

Virgil, now that you mention it, I think I do agree with that!

So I assume we have all heard of the tale of Caesar weeping before the bust of Alexander in morning of his lack of achievements.

Was Caesar's planned invasion of Parthia an attempt to ultimatly outdo Alexander? When you think about it, if he could pull off conquering the Parthian empire then he would indeed have claim as the greatest conqueror in the world.

I'm actually sad he did not get the chance.

Was Caesar's planned invasion of Parthia an attempt to ultimatly outdo Alexander? When you think about it, if he could pull off conquering the Parthian empire then he would indeed have claim as the greatest conqueror in the world.

 

I'm actually sad he did not get the chance.

It's one of the great "what ifs" of ancient history in my opinion.

Plutarch (if I remember correctly) wrote that he wanted to crush the Parthians, move through Armenia into the land of the Scythians and come back through the Germans to Gaul. Whether he could have succeeded or not, there's no one else I could imagine more capable of it in his era.

Is there any known reason why Caesar wanted to take that circleback? Seems pointless really. That Scythia area is hundreds of miles of open plain and little else.

Does anyone know how large an army or which legions Caesar would have taken with him to the east?

Thanks to wonderful research already prepared by Jona Lendering over at Livius.org..

Caesar's Legions prepared to go east were

II, III, IIII, XXVII, XXXV, XXXVI, XXXVII (At this point Caesar's long term veteran legions had been settled... Legions VI - XIV)

Thanks to wonderful research already prepared by Jona Lendering over at Livius.org..

 

Caesar's Legions prepared to go east were

II, III, IIII, XXVII, XXXV, XXXVI, XXXVII  (At this point Caesar's long term veteran legions had been settled... Legions VI - XIV)

Very interesting. What a great job he's done on that site.

Awesome. Any idea on auxillaries or cavalry? Surely the cav would have been considered important.

I personally believe that is Caesar had lived beyond 44 BC, his Parthian campaign would have ended in failure. Think about it, Parthia's army was made up of lightly armoured cavalry archers and heavy cavalry. The bulk of Caesar's army on the other hand was made up of slow moving (yet powerful) legoinaries. If these armies were to clash Parthia's cavalry would easily pick off Caesar's men.

Furthermore, Caesar would have been taking on a superpower of the time. Unlike the divided Gallic tribes Caesar was used to fighting, the Parthians were organised, well equiped, rich and more importantly more united than the Gauls. A terrifying and formidiable aponent if you ask me.

If you don't believe me look at how many Roman military disasters there were against parthia:

-CRASSUS 53BC, Legions anialated by Parthia at Carrahe

-DECIDUS SAXA 40BC, Lost Roman standards to Parthia

-MARK ANOTONY 36BC, Was deafeated by the Parthians in Armenia

No wonder Augustus wanted to create a peace with the Parthians in 20 BC

Caesar fought against an organized nation and won before: fellow Romans during the civil wars.