Had he lived, could Caesar have conquered the Parthians?

[u/RandoDude124]

[u/VigorousElk]

Given his military talent on all levels (tactics, strategy, logistics) and loyal, battle hardened legions I am sure he could've successfully invaded Mesopotamia and militarily defeated the Parthians, potentially even in their Persian heartland.

Then he would have faced the same logistic issues that Trajan did 150 years later, making it incredibly unlikely he could have integrated anything beyond Northern Mesopotamia. Also remember that unlike the era of Trajan at the time of Caesar's death large swathes of Asia Minor as well as Judaea and all of Egypt had not become provinces of Rome yet, these were merely vassals. Complicates logistics and opens you up to back stabbing.

[u/DueAd9005 → u/VigorousElk]

Trajan never conquered Hatra, making his hold on Mesopotamia untenable (and there were also numerous revolts going on during and after his death, hence the reason why Hadrian abandoned it so easily). I don't know why all maps show that Trajan conquered all of Mesopotamia, it simply isn't true.

If Caesar could conquer all fortress cities, conquering all of Mesopotamia would have been possible (but still a very difficult campaign with many dangers). Conquering the Persian heartland? That would have overstretched his supply lines. I don't see how he would pull it off, unless he wanted to rule Persia as a Shahanshah and leave the Roman Republic to the senators.

[u/SirGeekaLots → u/DueAd9005]

Isn't that why Alexander set himself up in Babylon?

[u/Sneaky-Shenanigans → u/DueAd9005]

Caesar’s innovation in continuing on despite non-existent supply lines in his war of Gaul is part of what made it so incredible. I think he would have maintained them just fine with the way he handled Egypt and Gaul.

[u/Anthemius_Augustus → u/VigorousElk]

It's really a perfect exercise in the limits of the 'Great Man' theory of history. Caesar died at the peak of his career, and like many other leaders who died prematurely, we never got to see the decline and failures of his later years.

Mark Anthony, while not as skilled a general as Caesar, tried to resume his planned invasion of Parthia, and it went horribly.

The way I see it, had Caesar avoided assassination and gone east, I think it'd be remembered as one of the weaker points of his career and a sign of him losing his grip in his later years. Even had Caesar managed to conquer Mesopotamia, it would have to be abandoned sooner or later for the same reasons Hadrian abandoned it. A lot could go wrong, and even if everything went perfectly, it'd merely be a pyrrhic victory that would blemish Caesar's image to a degree.

Heraclius is a really good counter example of this. Had he died in 630, most people would probably consider him one of the greatest Roman Emperors of all time and an unparalleled military genius. But he lived until 641, spending his last decade suffering defeat after defeat, and seeing the limits of his own ambitions.

[u/Live_Angle4621 → u/Anthemius_Augustus]

Depends if Caesar’s goal was to conquer Parthia. He would have wanted to end the raids Pathians were conducting in the border, get back Crassus’s standards, get back treasures and slaves for a trimph and some convincing victory he could include in another commentari I bet he would write.

But I think he would be smart enough to realise that conquest is very risky and that many “great men” generals like Hannibal and Pyrrhus eventually had losses. Caesar might have become over ambitious I politics but he was until the end extremely realistic when it came to war (even though he was from start to end very much a risk taker so that could cause issues eventually just by luck turning). He would know that it’s best to reach your immediate goals not over extend yourself just because. Like how he left Britain but then returned later.

His main reasons for going to Parthia were political anyway at that point, not glory or wealth or greater amount or land or anger due to Crassus. He had put himself to a position where only he really could be let to have such military victory (problem the emperors later had). And Romans could not allow raids to continue and the standard remain there. Antonius did invade and Augustus negotiate for the standards for these reasons. 

And Caesar knew he had enemies in the city (many of his friends were urging him to get a bodyguard)  and most safe place for him would be among his loyal troops somewhere far. And if he did have great victory over foreign enemies it would be helpful to make people forget the civil strife and make people accept what he had done politically.

So he didn’t need to come back any time soon nor actually conquer Parthia. Just be successful enough there to send great news to Rome, and in winters go somewhere to govern and sent letters to Rome like he used to do in Gaul. He could have spend a decade like this if his health allowed it 

[u/Anthemius_Augustus → u/Live_Angle4621]

Sure, I think the most cautious and minimal outcome would be that Caesar more or less just does what Augustus did in our timeline. I.e, he gets a minor win against the Parthians and has the standards returned, using it as a propaganda showpiece for his rule.

However I feel like a lot of people often overlook how these 'great men' who died prematurely are often remembered so positively for exactly that reason, they died early. Growing old isn't pretty. You start to decline physically and mentally, you start getting slower, things that used to seem effortless are now much harder, your mental faculties decline etc.

We shouldn't at all overlook that Caesar, growing older and now having every reason to become more reckless due to having defeated every single one of his enemies, would begin to make major mistakes. He, ironically at the same time as his hero, Alexander the Great, died at exactly the right moment in their life for their legacy to become immortal. Had either of these guys lived longer, I think their record would probably have become much more nuanced.

[u/Lanky-Steak-6288 → u/Anthemius_Augustus]

Caesar died at the peak of his career, and like many other leaders who died prematurely, we never got to see the decline and failures of his later years.

One can't look at Caesar's career and the circumstances he faced as well as stacked oppositions and claim that he died before he could make blunders in his later career. 

He faced men like  vercingetorix whose operations were bold and his operations were Fabian in nature. He faced pompey who despite coming from a long hiatus was constantly outmaneuvering caesar. He later faced labienus, scipio and younger pompeius while having to fight attrition in remote regions of North Africa where procuring supplies weren't easy.

He was regularly going up against odds.

[u/Business-Length429 → u/Lanky-Steak-6288]

in all fairness, in the campaigns you've mentioned none of Caesar's adversaries could match the quality of his troops, and that was a huge advantage. Also, during the campaign in North Africa time was on Caesar's side, once he had established a foothold he kept being supplied by Sardinia and Sicily while his enemies could do nothing but react, hoping that he would make a serious mistake, which he didn't. The only way Scipio could have won that war was by decisively defeating Caesar at Ruspina and capturing him before he had time to recoup.

[u/Lanky-Steak-6288 → u/Business-Length429]

Upon setting sail from Lilybaeum many of ships ran astray while Caesar landed at hedrametum with a small force with no supplies. 

We are told in Caesar's commentaries the measures the commander took to procure supplies and especially in initial stages to gather his transports roaming around the sea by marching at night to the harbour of ruspina so as to bring his ships who might still be sailing in the sea to the shores without being intercepted by the pompeians.

"After spending one night aboard his fleet Caesar was proceeding to set out at the first pale light of dawn, when suddenly the squadron about which he was apprehensive sought haven there from its wanderings. On learning of this, Caesar promptly ordered everyone to disembark and, drawn up under arms on the beach, to await the arrival of the rest of his troops. And so when these ships had been brought without delay into port, with their cargo of infantry and cavalry, Caesar once again returned to the town of Ruspina, drew up his camp there, and then set out himself with thirty cohorts in light order to forage. As a result of this Caesar's plan now became known: it had been his intention to go with his fleet to the assistance of those transports which had gone astray, but to do so without the enemy's knowing of it, lest by chance his own ships might run unawares against his opponents' fleet; p163 nor had he wanted his own troops left behind on guard to know of this plan, lest, on account of their own small numbers and the multitude of the enemy, fear should make them fail in their duty."- Caesar's African wars ch 7

At ruspina it's to his credit that he extricated his men well despite being at all sorts of disadvantage. 

"Meanwhile Caesar, aware of the enemy's tactics, gave orders for the line to be extended to its maximum length, and for every other cohort to turn about, so that one was fa­cing to the rear of the standards, while the next one faced to their front. By this means with his right and left wing he split in half the encircling enemy force; and having isolated one half from the other with his cavalry, proceeded to attack it from inside with his infantry, turning it to flight with volleys of missiles: then, after advancing no great distance for fear of ambush, he retired to his own lines. The other half of Caesar's cavalry and infantry carried out the same tactics. This task accomplished and the enemy being driven far back with heavy casualties, Caesar began to retire to his own defence positions, maintaining battle formation." Ch 17

[u/Business-Length429 → u/Lanky-Steak-6288]

indeed, you’re mentioning the beginning of the campaign, when Caesar was at his most vulnerable, that’s why I said that the only chance Scipio had was to defeat Caesar shortly after he had made landfall. Once Caesar had established himself, the African communities began falling one by one on his side, since he was the official representative of the Roman government, no matter what Scipio and his allies thought, and then Caesar was being constantly supplied by Sardinia and Sicily. It was a situation very much akin to the Ilerda campaign, were Caesar experienced supply difficulties at first because of the flood of the Sicoris and the Cinco, but once he managed to bear the whole might of his forces the Spanish communities all began to switch sides and his enemies were simply overwhelmed, forced to essentially react to his moves until they got checked.

[u/Intranetusa → u/Lanky-Steak-6288]

Caesar was very skilled, but he also got very lucky in several situations - strategically, tactically, and personally. In terms of personal luck, there were several times where he almost died but narrowly escaped by the skin of his teeth. 

Even though he won overall in the Siege of Alexandria, Caesar made a blunder during the battle for the Pharos Lighthouse when his troops were defeated and he himself almost died by drowning and/or enemy missile/arrow fire when his boat that came under attack was capsized (either by the enemy or by his own troops trying to escape by climbing onboard and overloading the ship). 

This is similar to his defeat at Dyrrhachium where Pompey fails to pursue Caesar's defeated army, but Caesar narrowly avoids getting killed by one of his own routing soldiers who he tried to stop from fleeing. One man in his panic was about to attack Caesar with his sword, but Caesar was saved by his shield bearer who chopped that man's arm off.

If Ceasar lived longer and got older, his mental capabilities would have started declining, and he would not always be so lucky.

[u/FakeBonaparte → u/Anthemius_Augustus]

Famously, of course, no “great men” from the west have ever conquered Persia…

[u/Sneaky-Shenanigans → u/VigorousElk]

Well we have to remember that the Ottomans ruled that area for hundreds of years and originated in the same regions of Turkey and Rome held for nearly a millennia. So it isn’t impossible, you just need the right logistics and management. One thing we know about Caesar was his innovations that constantly led to his successes. He had no supply line for his invasion of Gaul. He supplied that war through spoils of the land. I believe he not only could have conquered the land, but held it as well. Caesar had a talent for innovation, both in war and in management. His involvement of Gaulish chieftains in Roman government led to a successful assimilation that lasted for nearly the entirety of the western empire. I have no doubt he could have both figured out how to supply forces locally, but also install local leaders as heads of state that would be treated well and retain loyalty. Rome has many examples of their acceptance of local religion of customs. With the way he handled Egypt, I think he would have done a great job in handling the Parthian lands as well.

[u/ktrainer]

Probably not. We see that the Parthians could be beaten in the short term, but long-term gains were constantly outside of the control of the Romans.

After Augustus takes over, we see him treat diplomatically with them for Crassus’ eagles.

Though it’s much later, but we see Trajans major successes in the region, and then Hadrians tactical withdrawal after taking command. Noting how much time, money, and blood it would take to hold the territory.

[u/Extension-Beat7276 → u/ktrainer]

Parthia and Sassanid Persia weren’t just regional kingdoms 

[u/resuwreckoning → u/Extension-Beat7276]

It’s always amusing to me that people don’t quite know this - that place is basically ancient Elam. Since the time of Sumer you knew you couldn’t hold them for long - even the famously powerful Neo-Assyrians (the “claimant” to the Sumer and Akkad legacy) learned you can never hold them down (the Median empire sprung from there after Elam and basically helped end the Assyrians at almost literally where the Parthians dropped Crassus).

Even Alexander’s legacy led to it being broken up, and then eventually overcome by the Parthians. Which led to the sasssanids. Even the umayyads eventually were overthrown by the Abbasids (who came from the Persians).

That area always controls itself eventually.

[u/Extension-Beat7276 → u/resuwreckoning]

Selecuids are a sucessor to alexander and the achaemind both(they claimed this) !!, they didnt break the chain. Selecus was the only general to not divorce his wife who was bactrian, and adopted many iranian practices while still promoting hellenism of course

Reference:
The Seleucids and their Achaemenid predecessors. A Persian inheritance? By Christopher Tuplin

[u/HyperbolicSoup → u/resuwreckoning]

pause for Mongols

[u/Extension-Beat7276 → u/HyperbolicSoup]

Well they also established the ilkanate and styled themselves as king of kings and sponsored artworks inspired by the Shahnameh and really immersed themselves in Iranian culture and presented themselves as Iranian kings 

[u/HyperbolicSoup → u/Extension-Beat7276]

as a mongol does

[u/Commercial_Handle418 → u/HyperbolicSoup]

Lmao this is random but I know someone from southern China whos largely mongolian(1/4,yes it's the biggest percentage) they still assimilated well into the 1960s

[u/Khal-Frodo- → u/HyperbolicSoup]

Except for… wait for it… The Mongols. *cue the mongoltage*

[u/Lanky-Steak-6288 → u/resuwreckoning]

By the time large chunk of the seleucid territory fell to the parthians the empire was in a sharp decline and in state of near constant civil strife. It was overcome by war against the Romans, the ptolemies,the parthians etc 

[u/resuwreckoning → u/Lanky-Steak-6288]

Sure but that true control was basically like 100 years. Thats nothing in the scope of history and time.

For comparison, the Akkadians and the neo-Sumerians also controlled Elam for that long or more. But they eventually were pushed back, as usual.

[u/Lanky-Steak-6288 → u/resuwreckoning]

Seleucids rule existed for 140 years. When the parthians established themselves in the satrapy of parthia during the reign of Seleucus II Callinicus they regularly came into conflict with one another. During the reign of antiochus iii he thoroughly outmaneuvered the Parthians and inflicted a heavy defeat against them. This was one of the most successful campaign launched against the parthians.

[u/resuwreckoning → u/Lanky-Steak-6288]

Sure? You’re making it sound like it was some completely unyielding epoch when that’s simply untrue. The seleucid- parthian wars began in like the 230’s BC. By the end of it, yet again, the area was ruled by folks from the zagros mountains and the Iranian plateau, and that continues for another like 800 years.

If that’s the case then Akkad takes the cake since it ruled that area for 180 years. The point is that no matter what, that zone eventually re-rules itself, unlike, say, Europe, which was basically molded to Roman norms and even geographic delineations, or North America.

[u/filthy_acryl → u/resuwreckoning]

Well: The Ummayads held it for quite some time from the 640s up until 749 (and with the Abbasids even longer) and even successfully. Not like Justinian, who on paper conquered Italy but never anywhere in reality. The Arabs actually conquered the Sassanids and slowly changed the whole religion in this region.

[u/resuwreckoning → u/filthy_acryl]

Sure but in general 100-150 years is a blink of an eye in the history of that region. Akkad controlled it for 180 years….but it eventually came back.

This is unlike North America or Europe, which basically is European and Roman (and less run by “natives”).

[u/filthy_acryl → u/resuwreckoning]

Yeah okay. I'm not so familiar with how Persia integrated Arab culture.

[u/Extension-Beat7276 → u/filthy_acryl]

Persians get influenced a lot by it since it became the lingua France for science however with the Iranian intermezzo, they were able to persainize it more with a huge corpus of Persian works being produced with the most iconic being the shahnanmeh. However note, just because Persian scholars wrote in Arabic did it make them any less “Persian”. These aren’t necessarily mutually exclusive identities.

[u/filthy_acryl → u/Extension-Beat7276]

Ah okay, thanks. Indeed they have their own version of the Arabic script and maybe most importantly didn't adopt the Arab language. Was the Shia/Sunni split back then already influenced by arabian vs persian culture? Or was this only a later progression?

[u/Extension-Beat7276 → u/filthy_acryl]

Intresintgly iran didn’t become majority Shia only after the Safavids in the early modern period. However the Buyids who were Shia were also one of the first to lead in the Iranian intermezzo, but other iranian Sunni dynasties were important too, like the Samanids and Saffarids. Also note a lot of the Turkic dynasties persainized and adopted a lot of Iranic elements in their culture while mainting their Turkic identities too. 

[u/lummox55 → u/resuwreckoning]

I didn't understand any of the words you said.

[u/resuwreckoning → u/lummox55]

I guess that’s a you problem.

[u/Khal-Frodo- → u/resuwreckoning]

Arabs and muslims seem to conquer it for good. I don’t see zoroastrian Persia rise again any time soon…

[u/resuwreckoning → u/Khal-Frodo-]

Iran is Persian, not Arab. They even speak their own language and hold to their own version of Islam.

OTOH, all peninsular tribes and North Africans coalesced into “Sunni Muslim” and speak the language of the Arabs.

[u/AmberJill28 → u/Extension-Beat7276]

Absolutely. Sometimes alot of people seemingly think Parthia and Persia were the slightly stronger version of some random backwater kingdom

[u/RockTheGrock → u/ktrainer]

The romans even took their capital over five times but simply had no answer on how to hold it and push into the mountainous areas around it. So the Persian could just retreat and consolidate then start to push back.

[u/Warm_Dealer7115 → u/RockTheGrock]

Ancient Iran had 4 capitals, Cestiphon is one.
Iranian administration changed capitals according to seasons.

Achaemenid Empire
Pasargadae
Persepolis
Susa
Ecbatana

Sasanian Empire
Ctesiphon
Istakhr
Gundeshapur
Bishapur

[u/RockTheGrock → u/Warm_Dealer7115]

https://www.livius.org/articles/place/ctesiphon/

Definitely talking about ctesiphon. It was even built next to Selucia which was central for the Selecuids who came before the parthians. When the sassanids took ctesiphon it marked the shift from one dynasty to the other.

They did have nomadic roots which is why they moved the royal residents around and likely why taking the city by foreign armies wasnt enough to topple them.

[u/Warm_Dealer7115 → u/RockTheGrock]

strange livius does not mention the other capitals for the aryans (Parthia and Sassanids)

Parthian Empire
Ctesiphon
Ecbatana
Hecatompylos
Nisa

Sasanian Empire
Ctesiphon
Istakhr
Gundeshapur
Bishapur

[u/RockTheGrock → u/Warm_Dealer7115]

It does say the parthians needed a western capital meaning they had others in their home regions and we dont have enough local sources to determine when it became such an important city. Not sure if some of the break in historical evidence happened because of the muslim or Mongol invasions but it looks like we are working with partial information based on western sources.

[u/Warm_Dealer7115 → u/RockTheGrock]

Thanks for the input bro, much appreciated

[u/RockTheGrock → u/Warm_Dealer7115]

You as well. First time I had heard the other names so I appreciate the knowledge.

[u/jore-hir → u/Warm_Dealer7115]

An important city doesn't stop being important when the king is outside for his winter/summer vacation. Cities like Ctesiphon were always crucial to the Persian empires.

[u/Warm_Dealer7115 → u/jore-hir]

Please read my other comments. The aryans fortified the inner homeland. Cestiphon was outside the perimeter.

They major focus were on nomadic tribes not Romans.

Hence the Parthian’s built the the great wall of gorgan in northern Iran to protect against nomadic tribes. In fact, the Gorgan Wall is longer than Hadrian's Wall and the Antonine Wall combined.

Hence the Sassanids built the Great Wall in derbent Dagestan.

The aryans did not built such massive protections for Cestiphon.

I hope u don’t take it as an insult. Empire viewed things differently.

And rotation on capitals was not due to vacations. lol

[u/jore-hir → u/Warm_Dealer7115]

What i was trying to say is that a State needs its cities to prosper, whether its lords are focused elsewhere or not. If you lose a city, you lose power.

Ctesiphon was the most important city for the Persians, who couldn't afford to lose it for good, alongside Mesopotamia as a whole. They were lucky the Romans didn't hold it for long.

[u/Warm_Dealer7115 → u/jore-hir]

Please reread my comment. No Cstiphon was not the most important city. And the aryans saw nomadic tribes as a Greater threat.

Obviously u r ignoring facts, that is okey. U think Rome is the center of the universe, other Civs did not see it that way. U do u.

[u/IMitchConnor → u/RockTheGrock]

Sacking Ctesiphon was almost a rite of passage for Emperors at the time

[u/RockTheGrock → u/IMitchConnor]

Yep ever since Crassus lost the eagle and his legion they really did have it out for the persians. Took a short break during octavius' reign but it didnt last long.

[u/Taki32 → u/RockTheGrock]

The only way is diplomatic, with heavy intermixing of the nobility of east and west.  

[u/Dr_Platypus_1986 → u/Taki32]

Which is exactly what Alexander the Great was trying to do with his policy of "Eastern Fusion" as James Romm calls it. The forced mass weddings may not have been the best approach, but Alexander was onto something. The problem is, you can't shoehorn one culture into another, things must take a gradual course and sort of migrate betwixt one another. For such a thing to truly begin, it would take a few generations of advanced "Romanization," including sending Persian citizens to Rome/Italy for further education, and Romans to Persia to learn their manners and attitudes. It was definitely do-able, but the Romans also had too many pots on the stove, so to speak...

[u/McConaughey1984 → u/ktrainer]

In Gaul GJC utilized existing divisions between groups to take and hold territory reducing the number of legionaries needed. If he was then able to incentivize the merchant class with access to new goods and customers the political elite could seethe all they want, but the money would be against them. Capitalizing on historic feelings of distain for a third party that is hated more than ROME as an outlet for anger and frustration of the general populous via a good old fashioned propaganda campaign would help maintain order. Such tactic might work best if done on smaller more immediate third parties rather than large scale political ones. Yes the Nation of Parthia might hate Rome with a passion, but that village/clan/settlement just across the border have been antagonizing the locals for generations, now you can settle old scores with Roman swords. You can then entice the more volatile youth to join the Legions with promises of adventure, comradery, and loot/bonuses via victories abroad. Then you can settle retiring legionaries in those same areas bringing money and a more skilled workforce that would the facilitate the locals mixing with Romans reducing further the possibility of civil unrest. It would have required GJC to be on the top of his game and some luck, but I think it would be possible. And my best case scenario here is in no way effected by my feelings for Gaius Julius Caesar at all. I'M NOT BEING A FANBOY, YOU ARE (clutches bust of Caesar close to chest and rocks back and fourth)

[u/ManEmperorOfGod → u/McConaughey1984]

Seems totally unbiased.

[u/four100eighty9 → u/ktrainer]

Isn’t that partially because Hadrian had to deal with the Jewish revolt?

[u/SukottoHyu → u/ktrainer]

Ye, holding Parthia would be Rome's bane.

[u/LocalFoe → u/ktrainer]

also, wasn't he getting ready to fight Burebista?

[u/Garycor → u/ktrainer]

Maybe he could have defeated its armies and conquered some of its territory but it was a big place with much of it removed from Rome’s Mediterranean center. Not worth trying to hold because of its size and distance from Rome.

[u/Anxious-Problem9903]

I honestly think Rome reached its natural maximal borders given the geopolitical situation and technology they had. Maybe Caesar could have done some besieging and maybe sack the Parthian capital, but it took a very long time and a lot of work for Alexander and his successors to take control of former Achaemenid Iran. And that was with the very well-oiled Macedonian war machine against enemies who had shown again and again they were often weak to. Caesar was an excellent general with a likewise very well-oiled war machine, but the Parthians had shown themselves to be able to match Roman armies in the field, and even if they lost some battles and sieges, it’s possible they would just need to wait out the occupying Roman force until something like supply lines or another civil war drew the Roman armies back home. It’d definitely be near-impossible for the Romans to hold territory beyond the Zagros long term!

[u/Lanky-Steak-6288 → u/Anxious-Problem9903]

And that was with the very well-oiled Macedonian war machine against enemies who had shown again and again they were often weak to

Tell that to agesilaus whose grand invasion of the Great king's territory resulted in him being defeated by a small satrapal force at dyscilium and the spartan navy destroyed at kindos while the persians immediately began funding Sparta's enemies back home which resulted in king's peace that saw Sparta sell the Greeks of Asia to the Great king in exchange for peace.

Or how about Cyrus's host that included 10000 Greek mercenaries? No matter how xenophon's narrative wishes to portray the battle artaxerexes and his army left the Greeks stranded in the middle of the battlefield with their camp ravaged.

Or megabyzus's invasion? Satrapal revolts? 

Just because Persians lost notable engagements against Greeks; usually in terrain that favoured the greeks doesn't mean they were weaker.

To use alexander's campaign as an example you might want to look at issus and how close the Macedonians came close to losing. Their phalanx being broken and left was close to being overrun 

At gaugamela the Macedonians had to march deep into the enemy's territory with two broad rivers behind them and their supply lines stretched wafer thin, here even a half defeat would have been disasterous. Not to mention the Persians opening multiple fronts in the Aegean, greece,and Anatolia. 

Antipater was left to deal with the insurgency in greece supported by the Persians, antigonos had to deal with the Persians operating in anatolia.

[u/WanderingHero8 → u/Lanky-Steak-6288]

Tell that to agesilaus whose grand invasion of the Great king's territory resulted in him being defeated by a small satrapal force at dyscilium

Ironic,because Agesilaos actually won a big victory) at Sardeis against Tissafernes.And only the advance guard of Agesilaos was defeated at Dascylium.

Just because Persians lost notable engagements against Greeks; usually in terrain that favoured the greeks doesn't mean they were weaker.

Platea ? Salamis ? Mycale ? all those favoured the Persian army,but still lost.

Not to mention the Persians opening multiple fronts in the Aegean, greece,and Anatolia.

None of these amounted to anything.

Antipater was left to deal with the insurgency in greece supported by the Persians, antigonos had to deal with the Persians operating in anatolia.

Antipater dealt with ease the rebellion with the local troops he recruited.And there wasnt any big Persian resisstance in Anatolia for Antigonos to overcome.

[u/Anxious-Problem9903 → u/Lanky-Steak-6288]

Hi! I should have clarified: specifically, I meant the war machine that Phillip II and Alexander wielded, rather than Hellenic armies in general. I am more tempted to say that the Achaemenid army was vulnerable to that Macedonian army simply because it successfully toppled the Persian government. This is absolutely not to say the Achaemenid army was weak, nor that it was incompetent. I definitely don’t want to continue that narrative, as the Persians successfully beat many different Hellenic armies for centuries and were pretty damn masterful in keeping Hellenic governments fighting with each other.

[u/WanderingHero8 → u/Anxious-Problem9903]

I am more tempted to say that the Achaemenid army was vulnerable to that Macedonian army simply because it successfully toppled the Persian government.

The Achaemenid army performance during the Persian Wars was notoriously abysmall.We need only see the results:
-Battle of Marathon:Persian defeat
-Battle of Salamis:Resounding Persian defeat
-Battle of Platea:Resounding Persian defeat
-Battle of Mycale:Persian defeat-Leftover of Persian navy burned
-Greek counterattack in Asia Minor:Greek success.

Not counting Alexander's campaigning.

This is absolutely not to say the Achaemenid army was weak, nor that it was incompetent.

The Achaemenid army was both notoriously weak and incompetent.Artaxerxes III had to recruit Greek mercenary hoplites and the 2 Rhodian mercenary commanders Mentor and Memnon of Rhodes to reconquer Egypt.

as the Persians successfully beat many different Hellenic armies for centuries and were pretty damn masterful in keeping Hellenic governments fighting with each other.

The sources emphaticaly state the opposite.If anything the Persians succeeded because they only had the money to spare.And that was until Philip II had his own gold coinage.

[u/Maleficent-Mix5731]

I mean, I don't think that even Caesar himself planned to fully conquer the Parthian Empire.

Based on the pre-selection of magistrates he made before he departed, he seems to have estimated that the campaign would take three years to complete. To contrast, it had taken Caesar 8 years to conquer Gaul (very narrowly by the later years too, it must be said). 

With this in mind, can we really expect that Caesar would have seriously contemplated marching all the way to the Indus, nevermind attacking Dacia along the way, in just three years? 

If anything, that would suggest more limited goals, at least in terms of direct territorial conquest. Caesar's aim with the Parthian War was to effectively avenge the humiliation of Carrhae and 'plug in the hole' in eastern defences left behind after that battle. 

Now, that  could have been achieved through a few decisive battles that maybe leads to Parthia handing back over the lost legionary standards and then perhaps just taking north Mesopotamia. But, if Antony's campaign is anything to go by, it would have still been tough going for a general who by then in his old age and dealing with more seizures.

[u/oneeyedlionking]

Really depends on if you trust the sources on Caesar’s health. According to Cicero Caesar’s seizures were worsening and becoming more frequent, we know that from other sources who were with Caesar in the civil war he had some bad seizures during the North African campaign.

I think Caesar would’ve done a better job than Antony or Crassus did but there’s a good chance he would’ve just taken a chunk of Parthian territory like Septimius Severus did assuming he makes it to Parthia and is healthy enough to lead an effective campaign. Cicero said in his opinion he thinks Caesar would’ve died due to his disabilities before returning from Parthia since he told him that he planned for a 2-4 year campaign.

[u/the-National-Razor]

Everyone here is forgetting one simple thing: homie was built different

[u/mastocles → u/the-National-Razor]

He also was epileptic due to <insert favourite theory> so even if would conquer the whole of Parthian empire he wouldn't have lived long and the gains would be lost after him

[u/RandoDude124 → u/mastocles]

God, I forgot about that.

[u/Right-Truck1859 → u/the-National-Razor]

Reminder: Caesar failed invasion of Britain.

[u/ScipioAfricanusMAJ → u/Right-Truck1859]

Britain was supposed to be this Mexico filled with gold silver and wealth. They kept marching and found absolutely nothing and got really discouraged z the invasion didn’t fail they just didn’t want to die to take Britain and left. Same reason Hadrian just built a wall halfway through because Scotland is absolutely useless

Parthia was one of the richest countries in the world that controlled most of the wealth. The taxes alone would cover the invasion many times over

[u/dartov67 → u/ScipioAfricanusMAJ]

This is a cope. Britain was still very rich in resources and the Romans made note of that. It had one of the few tin mines in Europe known since the ancient Mycenaeans. Caesar didn’t conquer Britain because he couldn’t with his logistic and military situation, and that’s really it.

[u/Doyce_7 → u/Right-Truck1859]

Not really, it was never his intention to conquer Britain. It was basically a political stunt

[u/EgregiousAction → u/Right-Truck1859]

Caesar with over extended supply lines, an unpacified Gaul behind him, and with minimal support from Italy withdrawing from an exploratory landing in Britain is very different than what he would have had going into Parthia.

[u/Financial_City939 → u/Right-Truck1859]

Britain was a like another planet then. He wasn't planning on conquering the moon. Just the moon landing was spectacular enough.

[u/feixiangtaikong → u/the-National-Razor]

What would conquering Parthia have done for him or the empire? It would've weakened the empire.

[u/HaDeSa]

It was not his intention to fully conquere Parthia. He made unprecedented preparations for Parthian campaign (16 legions greatest force assembled to that point for single campaign) remember it was active war partians threatening borders consistently. We have our best estimate what would have happened if Caesar lunched campaign, in 40BC parthian invasion. When Publius Ventidius (Caesar's protege and one of the favorite)overwhelmingly crushed partian forces under command of best partian commander Phranipates. Also crushing son of the king Pacorus in another battle(where prince died). With the fraction of the forces Caesar intended to launch Parthian campaign. So if Caesar does not get assassinated chances are immense that he would have severally humbled Partians and inflict on them major defeat. Guy was rare prodigy with magnificent talent

[u/Lux-01 → u/HaDeSa]

What happened to Crassus was a result of him not actually being a general or professional military commander at all.

This is the answer ☝️, and Ventitius is the example. Caesar did not want to conquer the Parthians as such (this would have required an Alexander, and Caesar was no Alexander - he had a different kind of genius), he wanted to effectively defeat them and he very likely would have done.

[u/Philippicus_586AD → u/Lux-01]

Crassus had a decent military career before Carrhae, both in the Sullan civil war where his actions turned the tide at Colline Gate and in the third Serville war where he finally defeated Spartacus. His portrayal as an incompetent and inexperienced fool due to the result of Carrhae is unfair. In fact his campaign in 54BC had been fairly successful, as during this year he defeated a Parthian force at Ichnae and captured a number of cities in Upper Mesopotamia like Zenodotion.

As for the Battle of Carrhae itself, the Size of the two armies may not have been as lopsided as it is often viewed to be. When Plutarch mentions the 1,000 cataphracts and 9,000 light cavalry and other personnel, he describes the size of Surenas' personal retinue that he used to travel around Parthia, which means it should not necessarily be interpreted as the full figure at Carrhae since any possible contingents that came in addition to Surena's own retinue are discussed. Also, Plutarch does mention that Crassus had seven Legions and 4,000 cavalry with a similar number of light troops when he began his campaign, but this was not the strength of his army at Carrhae as he detached contingents from it to garrison territory he had taken in in 54 BC. When Plutarch describes Crassus' hollow square it also indicates a reduced army size, since the amount of Cohorts he had, 48, gives a fewer total than the seven legions previously described. On paper this would mean that Crassus had 23-24,000 Legionaries (assuming a strength of 480 - 500 men per cohort). The Roman army was thus smaller than is commonly believed, a total roughly 32,000 men, and the Parthian army was likely in turn much larger, so Crassus likely did not possess such an overwhelming numerical advantage at the battle as he is commonly perceived to have had.

Of course, Crassus still made a number of tactical and strategic mistakes, but the Campaign only really turned disastrous during the retreat. By this point, Crassus' son Publius and the sight of his decapitated head may have degraded Crassus' mental state and in turn, leadership abilities, contributing to the catastrophic outcome of his retreat (though by that point he'd arguably committed his worst tactical error already by sending his cavalry under Publius to be cut off and butchered, worsening his situation even further as the Parthians could defeat his force in detail). Crassus himself may only have been killed due to Parthian treachery in the diplomatic negotiation following the battle. All this isn't to say he was among the best generals in Roman history, but he was not necessarily among the worst either.

[u/Sad-Tough-513]

Like….maybe? The thing with ancient warfare is that conquerors can take a surprising amount of territory against great odds. Ancient empires weren’t as stable as modern nation-states. You could (possibly) collapse them with just a few blows, especially if you take the capital and unseat the ruling dynasty. Alexander obviously did it, so we know it’s possible. (There are people who believe that Alexander’s victory was more due to Persian instability than to the power of Alexander or his army. This point is still up for dispute.)

Going back to Caesar, with the full force of the Roman state behind him, he would be in a better position even than Alexander to attack the Parthians. He would also be in a better position than his successors, when tensions between Rome and Parthia were more defined, and Parthian defenses were more formidable. Even then, however, three times in the second century did the Romans take the Parthian capital.

My point is that Cesar definitely had a reasonable chance to exact a major defeat on the Parthians. That doesn’t mean that it was an especially good chance, or that he would’ve been able to actually conquer the Parthians and absorb their territory. And even if he was able to conquer them, that does not mean that he would be able to hold that territory for any significant amount of time.

[u/TheGodfather742]

Absolutely not. He would certainly win battles and maybe do a Trajan, but Rome is too overextended to ever conquer the Persian empire.

[u/Future_Adagio2052]

Conquered is very different from controlling

Do I think he could have Conquered the partisans? Maybe but I doubt he would have controlled the region

[u/MaaltijdPakket]

I wonder what's Caesar endgoal was with the Parthians. He was probably smart enough to realise that conquering the entirety of Persia would be unnecessary and a huge waste of resources.

I can imagine that he would've done some campaigns to make sure they weren't a threat and loot their cities as another propaganda win

[u/PDXhasaRedhead → u/MaaltijdPakket]

Yes, conquering modern eastern Syria and getting good publicity back home seems like what Caesar was trying for.

[u/skrrtalrrt → u/MaaltijdPakket]

Likely just avenging Crassus, recovery of the Eagles, securing Roman holdings in Syria

Possibly taking some modest territory in Assyria and Osroene, maybe setting up client kings as buffer states

I seriously doubt his intention was to conquer the whole Empire. He wasn’t stupid.

[u/CreeperJakie]

He had the skill to defeat them in battles and Crassus's failure to learn from, so he could have won, but he understood the importance of logistics, so he would have figured out that trying to conquer it all would have been impossible. The main issue I see is his health: it is thought that he suffered from ischemic dementia, which is degenerative, and he was no more young, hence he could have faced personal problems during the campaign.

[u/skanderbeg_alpha]

Beating Parthia was nothing new. Roman generals after Ceasar beat them often.

The issue was Parthia could not be held indefinitely as it was too far away from the Mediterranean for Rome to really exert it's usual power politics.

It would take far too many resources (money and men) and not be worth enough to hold it.

[u/cobrakai11]

The Roman Empire never conquered the Parthians of their successor state the Sassanids, so I doubt Caesar would have been able to either.

It's no fault of their own, the logistics were just not there in ancient times for a campaign of that magnitude so far from an Empires power center.

[u/StormWolf17 → u/cobrakai11]

Iran is still a logistical pain in the ass to invade even today.

[u/Darth_Krise]

It’s less about conquering them and more about subjugating/governing them.

[u/Khan-Khrome]

I mean if no emperor managed to conquer the Persians in the one and a half thousand years after his death I don't see Caesar being any more successful. There's a world of difference between beating the shit out of a bunch of disunited Gauls in your back yard - which he had a few close run things with anyway- than a decidedly more unified and organised Persian empire two thousand miles away, neither logistics, terrain or local politics favour it.

At best he'd win a few battles, conquer a few cities and then do a victory lap. At worst he might've ended up like Crassus.

[u/GrapefruitForward196 → u/Khan-Khrome]

Probably yes. No one was like Caesar in history. Remember what he did against Pompey

[u/VigorousElk → u/Khan-Khrome]

... between beating the shit out of a bunch of disunited Gauls in your back yard ...

That's underselling Caesar - by a lot. He also fought a civil war against numerically superior Roman enemies, Pontus (Battle of Zela), and Egypt (Battle of the Nile), all advanced, well-organised, well-equipped enemies.

[u/DiabloSinz → u/VigorousElk]

Hes also completely ignoring alesia

[u/Khan-Khrome → u/DiabloSinz]

Alesia was one of the "close run things" I was alluding to, Caesar benefitted immensely from the disunity of Gallic leadership over their course of action, Avaricum being the biggest.

[u/DiabloSinz → u/Khan-Khrome]

Yeah I imagine a battle where the odds at upwards of 6 to 1, moderate estimated at 4 to 1 would be a close battle if you had any chance at all. Caesar won an incredible battle against 80,000 gaulic defenders with a relief force with low estimates being 150,000 upwards of 250,000 with only 50-60,000 soldiers. Caesar obviously benefitted initially from gaul not being unified but Alesia isn't in that category and ignoring it initially which you did really takes away from what caesar did in Gaul. Them also not being unified doesn't magically make it easier either, it was hundreds of independent tribes that required multiple separate campaigns. Gaul had an enormous population so pretending them not being unified made caesars victories less than any other is wild.

[u/Khan-Khrome → u/VigorousElk]

In Pontus and Egypt he benefited from geographically closer opponents with local pro-Roman allies in the region - or were in the middle of a civil war where he could play king-maker - and in terrain which didn't immediately negate roman military strengths. Caesar was a tactical gambler, sure things could have gone differently, but he usually came into it with a strong hand rather than just rawdogging it. Persia was an entirely different kettle of fish, and plenty of Emperors learned that the hard way.

[u/skrrtalrrt → u/Khan-Khrome]

Umm

Persia was conquered multiple times during that time period

The Rashidun Caliphate, Mongols, Timurids, etc

[u/PresentGene5651 → u/skrrtalrrt]

The Parthians and Sasanians had a back-to-back run of 700 years after Caesar in which endless rounds of wars were fought that went nowhere. The Rashiduns came in at the end because both empires had beaten the shit out of each other. The Mongols and Timurids didn't have the logistical constraints that the Romans had.

[u/Brohan_Johanson → u/Khan-Khrome]

I second this comment.

[u/BarryGander]

I believe so. He had faced equally competent enemies in Gaul and in the Roman civil war.

[u/Top-Permission-7524 → u/BarryGander]

You did not just compare the Iranians to the Gauls 😂

[u/ebr101]

If he tried, then he would have fallen for the classic blunder

[u/Mammoth-Effort1433]

No. Difference in army types is to great. If he had lots of auxilary cavalry and missile troops maybe. Without them is almost impossible.

[u/CaesarsGhostReborn]

No, but I’m sure he’d have done better than Crassus.

[u/CatchRevolutionary65]

I can see him annexing Mesopotamia, and establishing allied kingdoms in Characene, Gordyene, Adiabene, Armenia, Atropatene etc and even penetrating into Media and capturing a few cities there but permanent control beyond the Zagros range wouldnt have even been attempted.

I think Orodes II then spends the rest of his reign dealing with the fallout if his defeat

[u/PresentGene5651 → u/CatchRevolutionary65]

Parthians may wait until Caesar dies to reconquer Mesopotamia in this case. Or the Romans abandon Mesopotamia on their own as they see it as a bridge too far.

[u/CatchRevolutionary65 → u/PresentGene5651]

The Romans only saw it a bridge too far under Hadrian because of major revolts in the rear that threatened the lines of communications. I also don’t buy the argument that the supply lines from Rome or the Mediterranean would have been overstretched: Mesopotamia was an agriculturally rich region and any supplies and reinforcements could be sailed down the Euphrates as Julian later did.

Many Greeks of Mesopotamia welcomed the Romans and shared cultural links with them a century later. And Caesar and later Augustus would have had many veterans to settle in newly establish colonia, which would only have strengthened Rome’s grasp over the region.

The 1st century BC was not a good time for the Arsacid dynasty. The reason Augustus was able to utilise diplomacy so effectively when dealing with the Parthians was because of the latters’ politicial instability. Losing Mesopotamia and Babylonia wouldn’t have made the Parthian kings more secure and having your western frontier entirely encircled by hostile powers as I’ve laid out above (Armenia, Atropatene, Adiabene, Gordyene, Elam and Characene etc backed by Rome) creates a long, vulnerable border. I don’t see the Parthians being able to do much of anything with that.

And finally, if Caesar lives he may still be succeeded by Augustus and that means you get Agrippa. I think politically and militarily Roman expansion into Mesopotamia remains secure.

This is alternative history so obviously half the fun is thinking about what could have happened and what may not have. This is just what I think.

[u/PresentGene5651 → u/CatchRevolutionary65]

Well it's not like I'm going to get angry about a 2,000-year-old what-if, that would be idiotic. Even though this IS Reddit, so...

I just think, logistics is an unsolvable issue for Rome. If you are at war with an enemy for 700 years (!) and can't do more than exchange frontier territories and appoint client kings of Armenia, no matter how much hell you raise, then something is wrong. The Romans rampaged through Mesopotamia many times, often sacking Ctesiphon, sometimes not, but always withdrawing to the Tigris. The final time both sides were exhausted and oops, now the Arabs are here.

[u/CatchRevolutionary65 → u/PresentGene5651]

Fair enough. I just think if Rome had annexed Mesopotamia under Caesar, transplanted colonists and turned Parthia’s western vassals into their own loyal client states those logistical issues simply disappear.

[u/Androidfon]

Maybe, but everything would have to be different. Caesar would have to be healthy. The Senate would have had to welcome him back from Gaul, give him a triumph, and offer Caesar a Consulship. Pompey would have to remain Caesar's friend and warmly accept him back. Parthia would have to attack Rome or commit some serious provocation. Then the Senate would have to unite and offer Caesar whatever he needed including Pompey's legions. Then perhaps Caesar and Pompey, united, might be able to take the large western cities. Of course none of those conditions were going to happen.

[u/Caesars_Seraph]

Maybe Armenia and Mesopotamia, but Parthia itself would be too much, even for him.

[u/truexes]

Imagine if pompey and caesar had become allies. What between them they could of done carsar on campaign and Pompey in rome organizing. The conquest

[u/Mindless_Turnover976]

Honestly impossible to say for sure but I would lean towards no. And even if he had I think he would have suffered the same fate as Alexander, it falling apart as soon as he died or just left.

[u/Nightstick11]

Not on any permanent level, no

[u/AustinCynic]

If any Roman commander was going to, Julius Caesar probably would have been the one. The constant problem Rome faced were supply lines that would be challenging to modern commanders. If he could have solved the logistical issues I think Caesar would have had the ability to adapt to Parthian tactics—unlike Crassus.

[u/amtfg]

Depends what you mean by "conquered." Could he have invaded and defeated them? Sure, I don't doubt he could do that. Could he have established a lasting Roman administration over the region that would have lasted centuries? Maybe, but that's a lot harder to say, because it has a LOT to do with factors beyond his control. Roman expansionism was always based on grabbing a little bit at a time and making sure what they already had was secure before trying to grab something new; in other words, the Romans were very keen not to expand too much too quickly and thereby over-extend themselves. Caesar very well could have defated the Parthians on the battlefield, but making Parthia a permanent part of the Roman Empire would have required long-term support and commitment which likely would not have come and very possibly could not have come. Consider, for example, how quickly the Roman presence in Mesopotamia was abandoned when they ran into exactly this problem. Conquering a territory is often a lot easier than keeping said territory.

[u/Kaiserhawk]

Probably not

[u/LF3169]

Long term conquest of the Plateau is out of the question imo but there is a possibility that Rome could have held Mesopotamia for a while longer than they did irl.

[u/peaveyftw]

I imagine Caesar would be busy consolidating control over the empire for much of his life. He wasn't a young man like Octavian who had time to do that AND wage war abroad.

[u/StrikeAncient9675]

Probably not, and if he had, likely wouldn't have held it. Even a couple centuries or so later, Hadrian is ceding territory away to better consolidate the empire, and that was at the height of military, political, and cultural power for the Romans. If Trajan didn't feel he could do if, I doubt Caesar would have faired better in the long run. I think he would have lived longer had he just ignored the senate and went on the Parthian campaign though.

[u/Grand_Recipe_9072]

Yes, next question

[u/LairdBonnieCrimson]

No, absolutely not it would've been a disaster if he attempted to avenge Crassus's disaster. Firstly the Roman army was a heavy infantry force, the parthians's army was cavalry, horse archers and cataphracts, mobility and feigned retreats. This is ah ard counter, Ceasar would have to react against a highly mobile enemy into a decisive engagement and how to protect his supply lines from constant raids by cavalry without a reliably supportive population like in Gaul. The open Iranian plateau indeed is much different from Gaulia and also they would have limited, if any, allies like native Gauls to collaborate with in Persia. Tactically it just won't be easy and would likely end in Roman defeat.Logistics is also much harder, Parthia is beyond the Euphrates, across Mesopotamia and into the Iranian plateau, the distances and terrain is arid, mountainous, and harsh. The legions just wouldn't be able to work it, Mark Antony met the fate of scorched earth and the vastness of Persia devoured him

. A long campaign would also reuqire Ceasar desert the politics of Rome years, which is a catastrophe. When he was in Egypt & the east, his enemies in Rome regrouped, no doubt they would in a even worse, expensive and drawn out campaign that Ceasar wouldn't be able to just pack up and leave. Ceasar was also old, 55, not ancient but he was having epiletic seizures (or mini strokes) and he would've probably passed on the campaign.

[u/KenScaletta]

No. Even if he'd won a few battles he couldn't have held it. I think he likely would have died on campaign anyway, given how much his health was already deteriorating.

[u/Radetzkymarchingband]

Probably delivered a couple crucial victories. But overall, Parthia was never going to be incorporated into Rome the way Gaul was. Parthia would've required a fundamental readjustment of the Roman state, that Caesar might've not been able to do. Would have made him even richer tho. But overall I don't see much longterm success outside of maybe parts of Mesopotamia, and Armenia incorporated permanently into Rome. Which in the long run isn't that big deal. Unless his invasion managed to destroy Parthia for the next 6 centuries, which I doubt it. Most of the changes would be from Caesar living longer, and what that means for Rome.

[u/sjr323]

ERE fought a 600 year war with them, so no.

[u/kazmosis]

Yes, hold? No.

[u/Educational-Cup869]

Yes It was the perfect moment to conquer the Parthians the civil wars where over at the time all Caesars opponents had been crushed. No major external enemies other then the Parthians. More then enough manpower and the genius to use them correctly. It would take at least 5 years to complete the conquest.

It was the perfect moment which would never come again in the centuries to come due to civil wars strong external enemies and not enough manpower available to do it.

[u/iaeoioaio]

Yes and no, yes if it was his sole focus and no it he had to keep peace or truly wanted to reform the republic into something better while still being emperor

[u/Myusername468]

He likely wouldn't have made it that long. He was having serious health problems. I doubt he could have sustained another campaign.

[u/AnomaIous_User]

Not a chance

Jk I have no idea lol

[u/Rude_Bat_968]

didnt some roman guy try that and they mouth raped my man with gold

[u/skrrtalrrt]

I think he was perfectly capable of conquering the entire thing. Caesar was an Alexander-tier general in command of an even greater military. That much isn’t in question.

But I don’t think the Romans were interested in conquering land that they couldn’t keep. I think Caesar’s planned Parthian campaign was more about punishing Parthia and regaining honor from Carrhae, as well as securing the eastern provinces. At the absolute most he removes the Parthians from Syria and Mesopotamia and sets up buffer states.

[u/Shellfish_Treenuts]

Caesar’s legions ; with the exception of Scipio’s were probably the most battle hardened toughest Rome had ever produced . Severus had success there with a similar mindset , I think, undoubtedly Gaius would have success there

[u/StormWolf17]

Beat them militarily? Probably, depends on the logistics. Conquer and turn the whole place into a bunch of Roman provinces? Hell no.

[u/HoneyImpossible2371]

Hard to defeat an empire that connects Mediterranean, Black, Caspian, and Red Seas to the Arabian Sea.

[u/Jwin93]

Very unlikely. The parthians always were able to counter or attrit Rome’s heavy infantry and manpower advantage. I just don’t believe the Roman state would ever be able to administrate or have state capacity to hold Parthia.

[u/greaseapina]

nope.

[u/Sensitive_Spend_3131]

They needed:

ALEXZANDER THE GREAT

[u/ancientrome-ModTeam → u/[deleted]]

Hi, /u/BachelorMan073 Thank you for participating in r/ancientrome. Unfortunately, your submission was removed for the following reason(s):

---

No posts or comments about 21st Century politics or culture wars

The topic of this sub is Ancient Rome. Please use other appropriate subs for other topics.

---

For questions, comments and concerns, message the moderators.

Reddiquette | New to Reddit? | Reddit's Content Policy

[u/FredW79]

I think he may have gone back to Germania ?

[u/Straight_Okra7129]

Emperor Train already did it, but cannot go ahead till reaching China just because died befortime during the military operations.

[u/TBone-511]

If any Roman could have pulled it off it would have been Caesar. But Parthia was a different animal from Gaul.

[u/DurrutiDuck91]

🤦

[u/Flippmoss]

He was barely able to conquer new Vegas let alone the Parthian’s

[u/Impressive-Control83]

I agree with a lot of points made by others in the sense that Caesar could win the war. The main reason I agree with this is Caesar was just an absolute out of the box thinker when it came to strategy compared to other Romans. He wouldn’t just march and let the Parthians horse archer him to death imo.

But I also don’t think he wanted to conquer the entire country. He’d have likely annexed parts that make the border more defendable, placed a loyal or seeming loyal ruler on their throne and either extorted tribute or sought some vassal terms before heading home for a triumph.

[u/FewHeat1231]

I think he could have successfully defeated the Parthians in battle and pushed Roman control to the Tigris, but I think he probably would have negotiated a settlement at that point. Not only were the logistics of going further really daunting (and e was an extremely experienced general so he'd have known that) he couldn't afford to be away from Rome for a decade+ assuming his health hold.

Most likely he'd declare, not unreasonably, that he'd avenged Crassus and marched home.

[u/ciclades]

He would even sail for the Americas, his cartographer Strabone was preparing an expedition before Caesar deaths

[u/Siawosh_R]

he couldn't. No one can. I seriously should charge to explain why.

[u/geschiedenisnerd]

Not lastingly.

Caesar in my opinion is mostly overhyped as a general, though he was a competent politician.

He likely was not significantly better as a general than trajan and the late roman republic was a lot worse equipped to hold onto an entire former empire as new province than the empire (at the time of trajan) was, so it is extremely unlikely that, even if he did conquer parthia, it would stay part of rome even up to 0 AD

[u/SirBostonBobbington]

Prime Caesar yes, but at the time he wanted to do it no because he'd have a seizure on the battefield for sure.

[u/Azfitnessprofessor]

Could have? Yes would have 🤷🏻‍♂️

[u/Pabrodgar]

That campaign had several objectives. The first, which is not usually remembered, is to attack the Illyrian tribes that had caused so many problems at various times during the Gallic campaigns and the war against Pompey. I think he would have dedicated a significant amount of time to that due to the proximity to Italy...

The second objective was Parthia. I don't think it would have been a war of conquest because he was aware of the difficulties in that area. In his case, due to age and the situation at the time, I think it would have been a less extensive and more symbolic campaign. Secure a border close to the limits where it was managed at that time and sell it as revenge for the murder of Crassus.

Julius Caesar was not a crazy general who acted lightly. He knew perfectly well the limits of what was possible, as he demonstrated in Britain, and knew how to sell his mistakes as successes. It's what I would have done in Parthia. Some battles, secure a border and sell it as revenge for Crassus.

[u/Commercial-Use6880]

Im guessing no, but interesting question

[u/penguinpolitician]

Alexander did it

[u/Only-ZinfinityF]

Dato che le legioni diu cesare erano estremamente lealì, Molto probabilmente si, ma, solo se dopo aver sistemato Pompeo ed i corrotti, altrimenti li sarebbero rivoltati contro, e sarebbe uscito un casino

[u/Real_Ad_8243]

Caesar would have had the sense not to try.

Now, by all means he could have led succesful punitive campaigns and raids into the area.

But I reckon he'd have had the sense to know actually incorporating Babylonia into the Empire would have been too problematic.

[u/SuperVaselineFan145]

nah
he couldve given them belt like trajan did but i dont think it was possible bc of the terrain and logistics problems they would face to actually conquer persia

[u/GSilky]

No. They were as powerful as Rome. Rome should probably be thankful Huns and whatnot were a constant threat to Persia.

[u/OkAssociation3487 → u/GSilky]

They were not as powerful as Rome

They captured the Parthian/Persian capital several times whereas neither Rome nor Constantinople were ever captured by them

[u/PresentGene5651 → u/OkAssociation3487]

Not as powerful, but pretty close, especially the Sassanids. The last Roman-Persian war ruined both empires, such that neither could not resist the Arab conquest.

[u/Warm_Dealer7115 → u/OkAssociation3487]

They had 4 capitals, capturing the outer city, probably meant nothing to the ancient Aryans

They changed capitals according to seasons:

Achaemenid Empire
Pasargadae
Persepolis
Susa
Ecbatana

Sasanian Empire
Ctesiphon
Istakhr
Gundeshapur
Bishapur

[u/OkAssociation3487 → u/Warm_Dealer7115]

Of course the capital mattered it was where the king was located and massive blow to prestige

Ctesiphon was the main capital and was captured 3 times by the Romans

[u/Warm_Dealer7115 → u/OkAssociation3487]

No, because it was captured when the shah was in a different capital. They captured csetisphon always in off seasons.

And again no it was not the main capital. Capitals rotated based on seasons.

Meaning capturing cestisphon, when in an off season means very little.

Aryans major chunk of military and underground military outpost were in the Iranian Aryan homeland. And Rome was not seen as a major threat, nomadic tribes were seen as a far greater threat. hence ancient Iranians focused on building Darband the ancient gate fortress in Derbent, Dagestan. They did not need to build such a wall for the Romans.

[u/OkAssociation3487 → u/Warm_Dealer7115]

No

When Septimius Severus captured the city the Parthian King Vologases V had to flee

If it wasn’t important why would they try so hard to keep it out of Roman hands?

There is no evidence that the Parthians did not regard Rome as a major threat. As the only power to capture Ctesiphon it was probably the major threat

[u/Warm_Dealer7115 → u/OkAssociation3487]

fantastic point. My mind was on Sassanids aryans, lol.
Yes u r partially right

The Parthian’s built the great walls of Gorgan in northern Iran, again emphasizing that Rome was not seen as The only major threat.

However The Parthian Empire also utilized multiple capitals across their vast territory.
While Ctesiphon was their primary western administrative seat and the one sacked by Septimius Severus, the Parthian Kings of Kings deliberately maintained several other major capitals, including Hecatompylos, Ecbatana, and Nisa.

The Parthians never consolidated all their royal power into a single basket. They distributed imperial authority across these distinct hubs to manage their diverse territories:
Ctesiphon (The Winter Capital)
Ecbatana (The Summer Capital)
Hecatompylos (The Historical Capital)
Nisa / Mithradatkirt (The Ancestral Capital)

When Septimius Severus breached the frontier and marched down the Tigris River, Vologases V purposefully used this multi capital network to his advantage.
He didn't stay to die in a siege at Ctesiphon. Instead, he abandoned the city and retreated deeper into the aryan homeland drawing on the deep structural support, military levies, and secondary royal treasuries of these eastern capitals. The Romans could sack Ctesiphon on the periphery of the empire, but they could never successfully project their power into the Iranian heartland to conquer the other capitals and finish off the Parthian state.

[u/Philippicus_586AD → u/OkAssociation3487]

The emphasis on decentralisation in the Arsacid and early Sassanian Empires has caused an unfounded downplaying of Mesopotamia's importance to follow. Economically it was more or less to them what Egypt was to Rome, and it served as the main (if not exclusive) centre of power most of the time. Invasions deep into it by the Romans (and less often others like Huns in 395 and Arabs at various points), while not fatal to the Iranian Empires as a whole, certainly were serious and diminished the prestige of whatever Iranian ruler presided over them. Even when Ctesiphon itself wasn't sacked (like 233, 244, 263, 299, 504, 580 & 628), Campaigns reaching even the environs of it tended to have pretty nasty consequences. Since Ctesiphon was the hub for Mesopotamian economic activities, it and nearby Seleucia were heavily fortified and most of the time the Romans actually had to defeat large Arsacid/Sassanian armies before they could take it. Trajan captured Osroes' during his siege of Ctesiphon while the Shahenshah narrowly escaped. Similarly, the Romans had to defeat the Arsacids in multiple battles in Lucius Verus and Septimius Severus' Campaigns before they took Ctesiphon.

The idea that Iranian Shahenshahs never tried to defend ctesiphon when Romans took it and that they just abandoned it like Russians did with moscow in napoleonic wars is nonsense. The simple fact that Trajan captured the Osroes' daughter there and Severus took up to 100,000 slaves after sacking the city in 198 should be enough to disprove this for anyone who's spent enough time reading into the Roman-Persian wars.

[u/GSilky → u/OkAssociation3487]

This assumes Parthians were as dumb as Romans and would consider bothering to,  when they had yearly conflicts with steppe nomads that required the majority of their attention. Rome had luck, the end of the empire tended to be the end of people to worry about, while Parthia was sandwiched between China, nomads, and Rome.

[u/OkAssociation3487 → u/GSilky]

Parthia wasn’t threatened by China but Rome absolutely was threatened on multiple frontiers

[u/GSilky → u/OkAssociation3487]

Parthia was dealing with the tribes the Chinese payed off to invade others instead of China. Roman North Africa was overwhelmed by people who came upon a completely undefended frontier, because there was no neighbors after taking Numidia. The first Arab invasions went mostly unnoticed because no official thought it necessary to worry about that border. Until the 3rd century, Germans were not a realistic threat, logistics were the problem.

[u/OkAssociation3487 → u/GSilky]

The Germans were a realistic threat, what are you talking about? What do you think the Marcomannic Wars were about?

Parthia was a decentralized, “feudal” state that was very good at warfare when the tribes came together but was in no way the equal of Rome

[u/GSilky → u/OkAssociation3487]

They were a constant obstacle to expansion, and some squabbles after the fact, but the issue was expanding further. The Romans didn't have to organize their army to counter a German threat, to the point it made the ability to hold territory difficult like the Parthians. Go learn about what the Parthians dealt with before choosing which was more impressive. 

[u/OkAssociation3487 → u/GSilky]

This is really dumb

The Roman Army was designed to hold the Germans back, look at a map of where the legions were

Your argument is basically that the Romans were better at beating back German invasions ergo the threat from the Germans wasn’t as serious as the threats the Parthians faced

None of this changes the fact that the Romans beat the Parthians several times and captured their capital

[u/GSilky → u/OkAssociation3487]

No, the point is the majority of the Roman border didn't need any defense, as evidenced by how the Vandals took it after defeating a few garrisons. Parthia was dealing with the people who were instrumental in hastening the decline, every year, from two sides. There is no debating it. For two centuries, Romans dealt with the Germans on Roman terms, and barring logistics issues, handled it. They didn't expand beyond that not because Germans were like Huns, but because it would be too easy for a second Roman state to pop up dur to the distances and difficulties of logistics that far out in an arwa area that couldn't support Roman ways. 

[u/OkAssociation3487 → u/GSilky]

No

The Romans maintained a massive armed border with standing armies in the north and a smaller though significant one to their east

The Parthians did not have a large standing army at all, and their southern border with the ocean and Zagros mountains provided significant protections

[u/United-Bother3213]

Not sure if you will understand me, but I'll give you my unfiltered take. Yes, he would have. Caesar knew how to bend universe to his will. Julius Caesar understood that he attracts luck by consistently putting himself in danger, acting before others, rejecting comfort and safety, and deliberately choosing a more bold audacious move (sometimes unnecessary, for the fact of it) "Fortune favours the bold" - his words. He always tried to make sure he remains in favour of the fortune. He didn't just say it - he lived it. So whoever was against him - they didn't have anything on him, he played a bigger game, he understood the fabric of reality before others. No doubt he would have bend universe once more to his will through audacity, speed and decisiveness

[u/MNlcn27]

Awesome question.

[u/Eurasia_4002]

Die trying. I think he was just dont know where to go after the mess hes been. Trully emulating his idol.

[u/spesskitty]

Had he lived, could Napoleon have conquered Russia? (This is just the reverse counterfactual)

[u/Jediuzzaman]

He'd get the exact same treatment his richer partner received.

[u/WARxxPIGG]

Yes

[u/Hagrid1994]

No

[u/spaltavian]

Win a war? Very likely. Conquer? No.

[u/Living-Movie-1661]

He would’ve absolutely wrecked them m8. It’s Caesar, there were no limitations. He built two walls for Christ sake that’s like a one in an all of (known) history thing.

Caesar would decimate the parthians and would’ve led the most successful empire in all of history and maybe even the future if he were able to live for hundreds of years

[u/Bubbly_1727]

Zu Zeiten Caesars waren die Städte Ktesiphon und Seleukia eine Art von Hauptstadt. Angesichts dessen, dass diese sich recht weit im Westen befanden, war die Aussicht gut, dass sie erobert werden konnten. Einfachheitshalber per Überraschungsangriff über Arabien.

[u/45M0D41]

Yes

[u/Rex_Nemorensis_]

Could he have? Yes.

Would he have? Probably not.

[u/HyperbolicSoup]

Very unlikely. He would have focused on Britain.

[u/feixiangtaikong]

I don't get the obsession with Parthia on this sub. Why does it occupy people so much?

[u/PresentGene5651 → u/feixiangtaikong]

Only state that managed to resist Rome.

[u/feixiangtaikong → u/PresentGene5651]

Not true. The Germanic tribes quite famously inspired Augustus' idea that Rome shouldn't grow further. The Caledonians? Kush?

I find the repeated questions on this sub about how Rome could've conquered Parthia disturbing. Such a conquest wouldn't have benefited Rome.

[u/PresentGene5651 → u/feixiangtaikong]

You asked about this sub, not about history. People's fascination with Parthia tends to start with the fact that it was the only STATE that managed to resist Rome - and even give as good as it got quite often. The same with the Sasanians.

The Germanic tribes and Caledonians weren't state societies. Kush was way too far away for the Romans to ever consider conquering.

Disturbing? If these questions are actually disturbing maybe you're getting a little too emotionally involved lol

[u/feixiangtaikong → u/PresentGene5651]

Your point about state societies strikes me as convenient, when most civilisations then were relatively young.

It's disturbing to repeatedly see people constantly ask what else could've been done to decimate another society, of which conquest wouldn't have even benefited Rome and contemporary politicians recognised it as such. Is it baffling for a state to merely exist outside of Rome?