Could Trajan had conquerd the Parthian Empire?

[Yoni]

What if Trajan didn't got ill and was able to continue his campaign with a healty condition, do you think he would have conquerd the Parthian Empire?

[conon394]

I am sure it will be moved soon - but anyway yes had he lived long enough... However once he died the distance from Rome and manifest ability to survive as a independent state (Parthia that is) and the number of Legions require would certainly invite a Roman general to think of proclaiming himself the Seleucid..

[Flavius Nevitta]

No. It was unrest, not Traian's health which stopped the Roman campaign. Although they managed to regain several cities, they were in a very uncomfortable position. And even IF they would have been able to suppress this and march on, how would they have held on to a much larger area if they already had such problems with the smaller part they had conquered before? The problems there, together with the 2nd Jewish War (and the upcoming 3rd a few years later) shouldn't be underestimated.

[Carpathian Wolf]

Having dealt with the only relevant threat in Europe, Trajan could have placed most of his forces in combat in the east. If he was younger I don't think he would have had trouble reaching as far as India. Why not? He was one of the greatest generals in history ruling arguably the greatest Empire in the world at it's peak.

[hellheaven1987]

Having dealt with the only relevant threat in Europe, Trajan could have placed most of his forces in combat in the east. If he was younger I don't think he would have had trouble reaching as far as India. Why not? He was one of the greatest generals in history ruling arguably the greatest Empire in the world at it's peak.

And had mass rebellions behind, cut off his communication with his base.

[athanaric]

The Parthian Empire was vast, and at its borders beset with other enemies. Even if Trajan had defeated every one of their forces that doesn't neccessarily imply he would have succeeded in conquering the empire. Even the Islamic forces with their strong ideology and sense of purpose needed quite some time. And that was against a Sasanid empire that was severely weakened.

[Carpathian Wolf]

And had mass rebellions behind, cut off his communication with his base.

Mass rebellion where? To what are you referring to?

[Nikos]

Moved to Alternate history

-Nikos

[hellheaven1987]

Mass rebellion where? To what are you referring to?

There was Jewish rebellions within all empire, which term as Kitos War, and several rebellions in Mesopotamia. A better summary about the campaign is here.

A new series of wars began in the second century AD, during which the Romans consistently held the upper hand over Parthia. In 113 AD the Roman Emperor Trajan decided that the moment was ripe to resolve the "eastern question" once and for all time by the decisive defeat of Parthia and the annexation of Armenia; his conquests mark a deliberate change of the Roman Policy towards Parthia, and a shift of emphasis in the "grand strategy" of the empire.[15]

In 114 AD Trajan invaded Armenia, annexed it as a Roman province, and killed Parthamasiris who was placed on the Armenian throne by his brother the king of Parthia, Osroes I.[16] In 115 AD the Roman emperor overran northern Mesopotamia and annexed to Rome as well; its conquest was deemed necessary, since otherwise the Armenian salient could be cut off by the Parthians from the south.[16] The Romans then captured the Parthian capital, Ctesiphon, before sailing downriver to the Persian Gulf. However, in that year revolts erupted in Palestine, Syria and northern Mesopotamia, while a major Jewish revolt broke out in Roman territory, severely stretching Roman military resources. Simultaneously, Parthian forces began attacking key Roman positions; at the same time the Roman garrisons at Seleucia, Nisibis and Edessa had been attacked and evicted by the local populaces. Trajan subdued the rebels in Mesopotamia, but having installed the Parthian prince Parthamaspates on the throne there as a client ruler he withdrew his armies, and proceeded to Syria, where he set up his headquarters at Antioch. In 117, before he could reorganize the effort to consolidate Roman control over the Parthian provinces, Trajan died.

[Lysimachus]

Having dealt with the only relevant threat in Europe, Trajan could have placed most of his forces in combat in the east. If he was younger I don't think he would have had trouble reaching as far as India. Why not? He was one of the greatest generals in history ruling arguably the greatest Empire in the world at it's peak.

Nice subtle glorification of Dacia there. Trajan wouldn't have reached India either, that's just ridiculous. The Empire had revolts he needed to deal with, it would be a logistical nightmare, and his army would suffer attrition which would force it to withdraw back, all the way across Persia.

[Gestalt]

Well first he'd have to prove that he could conquer Hatra.Him and Septimus Severus both failed in that task.Cassius Dio wrote about the failed assault on Hatra,and I quote him below .According to historian Rose Mary Sheldon he was exaggerating about Hatra's size,for it was actually a fairly sizable city ,but it did lack sufficient timber,water,fodder which made it harder for a besieging army.

Next he came into Arabia and began operations against the people of Hatra, since they, too, had revolted. This city is neither large nor prosperous, and the surrounding country is mostly desert and has neither water (save a small amount and that poor in quality) nor timber nor fodder. 2 These very p421disadvantages, however, afford it protection, making impossible a siege by a large multitude, as does also the Sun-god, to whom it is consecrated; for it was taken neither at this time by Trajan nor later by Severus, although they both overthrew parts of its wall. 3 Trajan sent the cavalry forward against the wall, but failed in his attempt, and the attackers were hurled back into the camp. Indeed, the emperor himself barely missed being wounded as he was riding past, in spite of the fact that he had laid aside his imperial attire to avoid being recognized; but the enemy, seeing his majestic gray head and his august countenance, suspected his identity, shot at him and killed a cavalryman in his escort. 4 There were peals of thunder, rainbow tints showed, and lightnings, rain-storms, hail and thunderbolts descended upon the Romans as often as they made assaults. And whenever they ate, flies settled on their food and drink, causing discomfort everywhere. 32 Trajan therefore departed thence, and a little later began to fail in health.

http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/...s_Dio/68*.html

Next,Since I have a book which describes Trajan's foray into Parthia called Rome's Wars in Parthia Blood in the Sand by Rose Mary Sheldon. I will quote her thoughts(or conclusion) on his campaign which she calls a military disaster

Rome's Imperial Folly(author heading)

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Trajan was a great general and no fool.He did not blunder into Parthia as Crassus had done and lost 3 legions and their standards.He did not go into Armenia with poor logistical support as Antony had done.Nor did he lack good intelligence gathering skills. Plague did not strike the army as it would under Lucius Verus.Yet,by the end of the campaign,he had nothing to show for his efforts some have characterized as a 'fiasco'. But there is as much reason to believe he was pulling himself out of a situation that was degenerating daily.Dio, in his justly famous passage,said that conquering Mesopotamia was a constant source of war that became a great financial burden to the Roman economy.This seems borne out by Trajan's actions as well as Hadrian's

Trajan's Parthian campaign is, in many ways the climax to the story of to centuries of political posturing and bitter rivalry. Trajan was the first emperor to successfully carry out an invasion of Mesopotamia itself.Yet Trajan's grand scheme for Armenia and Mespoptamia would ultimately be cut short by circumstances created by an incorrect understanding of the strategic realities of eastern conquest and an underestimation of what insurgency can do. The lasting results of this endgame could only be failure. Rome gained not one inch of territory for its efforts,and by creating unnecessary problems on the eastern front,he made it necessary to take security forces from elsewhere. By 117 C.E. Trajan was dead in Cilicia,the new provinces had risen in revolt,and so had the Jews in a vast arc from Cyrene to Mesopotamia,with catastrophic results in Cyrene,Egypt,and Cyprus.Parthamaspates,who had been placed in Ctesiphon as a Roman client king,was losing control,and the lesser client kings were either losing their thrones or their imposed Roman allegiance.The only thing that remained for Rome was the claim to suzerainty over Armenia and Osrhoene.Hadrian did not abandon provinces that could be held. After all,where were the armies when Trajan died?In Syria.The extent of Trajan's military disaster together with the exiting threats elsewhere were not propitious to a second Parthian war.This did not stop Roman writers Like Fronto from criticizing Hadrian's decision not to proceed with Trajan's policy of expansion.It may very well have been that Hadrian gave up Mesopotamia because he realized he could not afford to reconquer it. Whatever their hopes,Trajan's successors never again extended the empire to the boundaries he had achieved and they never held more than a fraction of his Mesopotamian bastion.

Edit Fronto criticized Hadrian's decision not to proceed with Trajan's policy of expansion.I had it that Fronto criticized Trajan's expansion on accident.That was an obvious mistake since most Roman historians believed Trajan to be a majestic hero type figure,andd every emperor that followed failed to fit his shoes.Trajan definitely knew the art of propaganda.

Romes Wars in Parthia is very well sourced book written by Rose Mary Sheldon head of the Department of History at the Virginia Military Institute.A very good read.I was confused,however, when she mentioned that Trajan's invasion of Parthia was the largest concentration of legions ever known until that time.Mark Antony brought 16 legions( total 110,00) men against Parthia,which greatly overshadows Trajan's 8(total 80,000) she mentions.Auxiliary compared to regular army legions?

[The10thLegion]

Just a quick question, would the rebellions still spring up even if Trajan was still emperor?

[diegis]

I am pretty sure he had conquered, if he was 10-15 years younger. He was the last roman emperor who look for glory and conquest, and he was in position to do that.

He resolved the problems in Europe before, eliminating the last significant threat, Dacia, and in position to go with all necessary forces far in east. Parthians wasnt able to stop him, he conquered without too many fights the most important Parthians cities, including the capital, and defeated the Parthian army who tried to put up a resistance later.
At this point he lamented that he is too old to go further on steps of Alex the Great. Fortress of Hatra and jews rebbelion was saw just as temporary setbacks, the rebellions was defeated in 117 AD i think, in Parthia was a puppet king under roman control, and main roman army was based in Siria, with troops deployed to crush the rebellion able to re-join it soon. I think at that point, if Traian didnt died, he will be able to go much further in east, probably up to India. But ofcourse for that was needed years (to secure the conquered land, to resolve the logistic etc.) and as he said, he was already too old (and probably even the heat of the desert provoke him the illnes)

[Lysimachus]

Well that's all just ridiculous. The Roman Empire was overextended the way it is, no way in hell could they have ever gone to India.



As you can clearly see, Iran has an overall hilly landscape, and the overall axis of advance for the Romans would be limited since there is the Caspian on one side and the Gedrosian Desert on the other. Like the Persians did, the local powers in the way of the advance could find places to funnel the Romans in to and inflict losses on them with guerilla tactics. After suffering so much attrition, the Romans would be forced to turn back.

[Flavius Nevitta]

Just a quick question, would the rebellions still spring up even if Trajan was still emperor?

They started WHILE he was emperor and they were quite big and costly and the main reason for Hadrian to withdraw from several of the newly conquered areas. Those rebellions were a serious problem which shouldn't be underestimated.

The rebellions couldn't really be defeated without stopping the war and it seems that the uprising of the jewish diaspora, while defeated after losing many lives on both sides kind of swelled on until the Bar Kochba Revolt, which was one of Rome's most costly war of the imperial era (with Legiones XXII Deiotariana and probably IX Hispania completely destroyed).

So even if Traian had lived longer, he would have faced those problems.

[diegis]

Well that's all just ridiculous. The Roman Empire was overextended the way it is, no way in hell could they have ever gone to India.



As you can clearly see, Iran has an overall hilly landscape, and the overall axis of advance for the Romans would be limited since there is the Caspian on one side and the Gedrosian Desert on the other. Like the Persians did, the local powers in the way of the advance could find places to funnel the Romans in to and inflict losses on them with guerilla tactics. After suffering so much attrition, the Romans would be forced to turn back.

Well, lets see, on the idea that Traian was much younger around 40, not 60 and he didnt died in 117 AD. He already resolved the Dacian problem, empire isnt on threat from other directions and he is able to concentrate now in reaching India. Jews rebellion is crushed until 117 AD (Traian death; Bar Kochba revolt will be almost 20 years later, and was the end of jews as significant population in new named Palestina province who replaced Israel and Judeea), so he can turn again in full force in Parthia. Traian might started the war against Parthia to show them who's the boss (Parthia invaded Armenia and put their own king, without roman agreement, who considered Armenia as in their sphere of influence), but probably sooner after, and when he saw how weak was the oposition, he start to think at a much great result, as following the Alex the Great route.

Sooner or later Hatra will fall too, in Parthia he already had a puppet regime, controled by romans. In north, around Caspian Sea he controlled now Armenia, a new roman province, in south he reached Persian Gulf, and much souther at the Red Sea ports in Egypt (as Berenice close to Sudan, one of the biggest ports of that era) roman navy ships regulary traveled to India. He can secure the coast line of Persian Gulf, and be supplied by ships from there, and go to direction of today Pakistan then India, following that route. In north he can took advantage of internal strugle whitin parthians, took one fractions as auxiliares, in the promise of conquests in India, and eliminating togheter the possible rebelions. He doesnt even need to go thru Afganistan. And he clearly was able to defeat parthians armies, it was the later control who was a problem, but as i said, partialy influenced by roman victories, partialy by possible gains, some fractions (as the one romans put in charge as puppet regime) will suport romans. Is a lot of variables, but for sure not imposible to achieve for some military conqueror mind

[Gestalt]

What some people are failing to take into consideration is that Trajans near bloodless capture of Ctesiphon didn't mean the whole Parthian Empire was conquered or a puppet kingdom to Rome.Just their Western Capital Ctesiphon,and the Mesopotamian portion of their empire .The"Western" Parthian king Osroes fled before Trajan's massive army because it was too weak as a result of warfare against the Eastern Parthian monarch Volgasses III.The Romans often thought that capturing Ctesiphon its western capital and most populous city would be the end of Parthia,but it wasn't.The Parhian empire at this time like the Roman empire of later years was divided east and west and when Trajan entered they were at war against each other

"Vologases III of Parthia claimed the throne of the Parthian Empire about 105, in the last days of Pacorus II of Parthia (80–105). He reigned over the eastern portion of the kingdom from 105 to 147. The period was one of civil war in the Parthian kingdom; for the early part of his reign Vologases III contended with Pacorus II's legitimate successors Osroes I (105–129) and Mithridates IV (129–140), who ruled Mesopotamia. "
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vologases_III_of_Parthia


Eastern capital Hecatompylos.
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/...5/Hecatompylos

Lastly Sanatrukes was nominated as the Western king in-exile in exile by the Parthians once Trajans puppet noble was put in place since Osroes fled the scene without a fight.The capture of Ctesiphon galvanized the Parthians and once they put aside their differences they incited a widespread insurgency.Trajan couldn't successfully deal with that.When I have more time I can quote more from Romes Wars in Parthia which uses Trajan Optimus Pricepts by Bennet as well as numerous Roman sources in her chapter about Trajan.
From what I read in Romes Wars in Parthia,I am convinced that there is only a small chance that even a 30 year old Trajan could have accomplished the task since he was losing control of what he had conquered even before his illness.I think Appius Maximus Santra would agree with that statement if he were still alive.He was a legate whose army was completely wiped out by Parthian rebels when Trajan sent him out to defeat a rebel force somewhere in Mesopotamia.

[RomanSoldier9001]

Well that's all just ridiculous. The Roman Empire was overextended the way it is, no way in hell could they have ever gone to India.



As you can clearly see, Iran has an overall hilly landscape, and the overall axis of advance for the Romans would be limited since there is the Caspian on one side and the Gedrosian Desert on the other. Like the Persians did, the local powers in the way of the advance could find places to funnel the Romans in to and inflict losses on them with guerilla tactics. After suffering so much attrition, the Romans would be forced to turn back.

I would say yes! Because how you respond to the fact that Romans actualy pull it off with Heraclius?

[diegis]

What some people are failing to take into consideration is that Trajans near bloodless capture of Ctesiphon didn't mean the whole Parthian Empire was conquered or a puppet kingdom to Rome.Just their Western Capital Ctesiphon,and the Mesopotamian portion of their empire .The"Western" Parthian king Osroes fled before Trajan's massive army because it was too weak as a result of warfare against the Eastern Parthian monarch Volgasses III.The Romans often thought that capturing Ctesiphon its western capital and most populous city would be the end of Parthia,but it wasn't.The Parhian empire at this time like the Roman empire of later years was divided east and west and when Trajan entered they were at war against each other

"Vologases III of Parthia claimed the throne of the Parthian Empire about 105, in the last days of Pacorus II of Parthia (80–105). He reigned over the eastern portion of the kingdom from 105 to 147. The period was one of civil war in the Parthian kingdom; for the early part of his reign Vologases III contended with Pacorus II's legitimate successors Osroes I (105–129) and Mithridates IV (129–140), who ruled Mesopotamia. "
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vologases_III_of_Parthia


Eastern capital Hecatompylos.
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/...5/Hecatompylos

Lastly Sanatrukes was nominated as the Western king in-exile in exile by the Parthians once Trajans puppet noble was put in place since Osroes fled the scene without a fight.The capture of Ctesiphon galvanized the Parthians and once they put aside their differences they incited a widespread insurgency.Trajan couldn't successfully deal with that.When I have more time I can quote more from Romes Wars in Parthia which uses Trajan Optimus Pricepts by Bennet as well as numerous Roman sources in her chapter about Trajan.
From what I read in Romes Wars in Parthia,I am convinced that there is only a small chance that even a 30 year old Trajan could have accomplished the task since he was losing control of what he had conquered even before his illness.I think Appius Maximus Santra would agree with that statement if he were still alive.He was a legate whose army was completely wiped out by Parthian rebels when Trajan sent him out to defeat a rebel force somewhere in Mesopotamia.

Well, the resistance tried by Sanatrukes was in vain, his army who raised to rebel against roman invaders was defeated and he got killed by Romans. Then Traian marched further in proper Persia (today Iran) and conquered the city of Susa (the winter capital of parthians kings, Ctesiphon being the summer one). Parthians wasnt that weakened by civil wars since they was able to mount an invasion in Armenia, clearly knowing they will upset romans and have their reaction.

I think if Traian was some 20 years youger, and after resolving tht jews rebelion (already crushed in 117) he will be able to return deep in Parthia and go even much deeper