What If: Trajan Presses On to India

[D.B. Cooper]

Trajan once stood at the Persian Gulf, lamenting that he was too ill and wouldn't be able to follow in the footsteps of his hero Alexander and conquer India.

But what if he got that chance? Instead becoming ill, he gets better, and the revolts in his recently conquered territories get put down somehow, leaving the Indian subcontinent wide open for Roman conquest.

Could the Romans conquer a place the size of Western Europe? Would it be prudent to even try? How powerful were the Indian states there? If they could, then the fertile plains and exotic Asian goods would surely strengthen the economy now needed to keep the vast empire together.

Also it would open the door the China, making possible a sea-to-sea super empire.

[Axeman]

Logistics, Logistics, Logistics.

Rome was already at the breaking point, Trajan knew this but thought he could continue east, not to permanently conquer Persia for Rome but rather to destroy the vestiges of the Parthian State so that it wouldn't be a threat later on *He did this somewhat, but they were soon replaced by the Sassinads* His goals in Parthia were to wreak havoc, conquer a line up to the Zagros, and fortify his position in Mesopotamia.

[Blatta Optima Maxima]

The parthians cut off his supply lines, thus preventing any hope of further conquest.

[Vezon]

Yeah, Rome could never maintain such a large empire. They had trouble with what they had. If the Senate of the Punic Wars had remained in control, with leaders looking out for Rome instead of themselves, it could happen. But otherwise, no. And India had such a huge population that fighting the armies there would be difficult. The Selucid Empire couldn't do it, and they didn't have the same problems as Trajan.

[Blatta Optima Maxima]

Had Trajan been able to do so, he would have. But he WAS pushed back through strategy.

I wonder how the persians managed to hold him off, IIRC they had a civil war going on before the invasion.

[conon394]

But otherwise, no. And India had such a huge population that fighting the armies there would be difficult. The Selucid Empire couldn't do it, and they didn't have the same problems as Trajan.

India's ancient pop it more or less typically overstated. The Seluicid had all the problems of the Roman empire but in spades.

I would say its not so much logistics but Politics. The forces necessary, the time and prestige to gained could only be realistically allowed by any Emperor to himself - thus Trajan himself to finsh Parthia and go farther would be sort of committed to not being in the West for a very long time - too long. If Trajan lived longer and if he had a loyal family he trusted - wife and daughter, son(s) and one or two old friends as generals he could trust absolutely. Than maybe he could have retraced Alexanders steps but it hard to see lasting past when ever he did die.

[Caesar Germanico]

India's ancient pop it more or less typically overstated. The Seluicid had all the problems of the Roman empire but in spades.

I would say its not so much logistics but Politics. The forces necessary, the time and prestige to gained could only be realistically allowed by any Emperor to himself - thus Trajan himself to finsh Parthia and go farther would be sort of committed to not being in the West for a very long time - too long. If Trajan lived longer and if he had a loyal family he trusted - wife and daughter, son(s) and one or two old friends as generals he could trust absolutely. Than maybe he could have retraced Alexanders steps but it hard to see lasting past when ever he did die.

this

expansion of the roman empire stopped because emperors were fearfull about generals conquering new lands,basically the same with the senate during the republic,on the other hand many emperors that could make new gains did not see the need for new lands that would have been so hard to conquest and with little gain in the near future
much better to just loot cities,like they did in persia

Lusius quietus,germanicus,agricola
are all examples of generals stopped by emperors

[Erich Hartmann]

Disease,Disease,and more disease the further he got into tropical India if he somehow took all of Parthia without suffering illness is my opinion.Lets take a look at Alexander the Great who Trajan tried to emulate for a comparison.Though I don't think anyone knows for sure how Alexander the Great died,many scholars believe that West Nile virus was the main culprit.

From the CDC Center for Disease Control-U.S)

Alexander the Great died in the ancient Mesopotamian city of Babylon, on June 10, of 323 BC (Figure). His death after a 2-week febrile illness (Table) has fascinated ancient scholars and contemporary medical investigators (1), who have posited various diagnoses based on sparse clinical information—a few recorded signs and symptoms. Retrodiagnoses have included poisoning and infectious as well as noninfectious diseases (1–6). After reviewing ancient accounts and modern theories, we have concluded that Alexander may have died of West Nile virus encephalitis.

http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/eid/vol9no12/03-0288.htm

Furthermore we can look at Cassius Dio's account of his campaign in Mesopotamia,and see that disease shouldn't be entirely ruled out.I know he suffered a stroke, and that could well have been the sole cause of his illness,but the stroke is mentioned sometime after Trajan first feels sick and later comments that he feels like someone poisoned him.Pay special attention to the Black highlighted.Flies are known as common vectors for diseases and if he got into India I can only imagine which of the many tropical diseases he'd get. I know Trajan was older so his immune system was more susceptible to disease and the stress of the campaign wore his body down,but as in the case of Alexander in his prime illness or disease can kill at any age.

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
Trajan was preparing to make a fresh expedition into Mesopotamia, but, as his malady began to afflict him sorely, he set out, intending to sail to Italy, leaving Publius Aelius Hadrian with the army in Syria. Thus it came about that the Romans in conquering Armenia, most of Mesopotamia, and the Parthians had undergone their hardships and dangers all for naught, 2 for even the Parthians rejected Parthamaspates and began to be ruled once more in their own fashion. Trajan himself suspected that his sickness was due to poison that had been administered to him; but some state that it was because the blood, which descends every year into the lower parts of the body, was in his case checked in its flow. 3 He had also suffered a stroke, so that a portion of his body was paralyzed, and he was dropsical all over. On coming to Selinus in Cilicia, which we also call Traianopolis, he suddenly expired, after reigning nineteen years, six months and fifteen days.

http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/...nder_the_river

Whatever the truth of this, his sickness overcame him,and he was no longer able to conduct public business.An attack of diarrhea,perhaps an infection caught on campaign,finally killed the emperor

Source:Hadrian and the Trumph of Rome,Anthony Everitt
http://books.google.com/books?id=enA...0edema&f=false

Here's what just the typical housefly can do.(Orkins website).

Houseflies carry diseases on their legs and the small hairs that cover their bodies. It takes only a matter of seconds for them to transfer these pathogens to food or touched surfaces. Mature houseflies also use saliva to liquefy solid food before feeding on it. During this process, they transfer the pathogens first collected by landing on offal. Diseases carried by houseflies include typhoid, cholera and dysentery. Other diseases carried by houseflies include salmonella, anthrax, and tuberculosis. Houseflies have also been known to transmit the eggs of parasitic worms.

http://www.orkin.com/flies/house-fly...ly-and-disease

[Erebus Pasha]

The Emperor Carus was said to have even travelled further east than Trajan before being struck by lightning. Some people at the time thought that this was curse from the gods for travelling too far east.

[Blatta Optima Maxima]

Didn't Trajan pull back because the parthians were menacing his rear? How on earth could he push on?

[diegis]

Didn't Trajan pull back because the parthians were menacing his rear? How on earth could he push on?

Hmm, from what i know Romans defeated a Parthian army and reached as far as Susa, who was conquered as well, when a Jewish rebelion occured in the rear and advance was stopped, with some troops diverted to bring down the revolt. The rebellion was rather quickly resolved by Romans (less then a year i think), but unfortunately for him Trajan suffered a stroke, and was too weak to continue the campaign. He died on the way back to Rome, and the new emperor, Hadrian, abandoned the conquest plan and focused rather on reinforce the empire borders.

If Trajan, as he said in his own words, will be younger and healthy, he will definately push on, following the Alex the Great steps, and i think Parthians at that time wouldnt be able to stop him, as Romans defetead them and advance prety easy in their teritory

[Blatta Optima Maxima]

Well, I don't really know, although that all sounds a bit elaborate. But I don't know much about the invasion - I find late rome much more interesting.

[Erich Hartmann]

I think its obvious disease would have killed him off,if the guerrilla warfare of the Parthians didn't seriously deplete his army. The Parthian's most likely would have forced him to turn back the further east he went.Trajan basically took Ctestiphon without a fight and faced very weak resistance because the Parthians themselves were in a civil war and probably knew that their best chances was to avoid fighting Trajan's main army head on .The thing about the Parthians is they were a very decentralized state and could trade one capital with another which offered them some leeway for resistance.The Jewish revolt diverted Trajan's troops,but he was already starting to have problems before that revolt .Parthia was in a very weak state as a result of previous and current civil wars,but they proved they could mount an effective guerilla resistance as mentioned earlier in Trajan's failed siege of Hatra.Could Trajan have conquered all of Parthia if he was younger? Hard to tell,but from reading sources it appears doubtful.If he did,I don't believe that he would be able to hold on to it,and he would be constantly battling revolts that were springing up everywhere . He most assuredly wouldn't have conquered all of India in my opinion. Furthermore, other Roman emperors conquered Ctestiphon,but were unable to hold it and forced to leave as a result of a determined resistance.

Here's a quote from Consequences of Failure by William R.Corson concerning Trajan's campaign and guerrilla type tactics being used against Trajan's armies.

Trajan's Parthian campaign provides a good example of the physical conditions that generally accompany the phenomenon of military failure.At the start Trajan's legions had a 10 or 12 to 1 numerical superiority over the Parthian field forces,were much better armed and equipped,and had a horse drawn wheeled-wheeled logistical force at their disposal.By avoiding pitched combat and using guerillas to harass and cover their retreat,the Parthians lured Trajan and his legions deeper and deeper into the vast spaces of Parthia,with predictable results:the Romans superiority was dissipated in guarding lines of communication,manning the garrison forts,and attempting to resupply their strung out attack forces.Their "positional conquest"-the ground they physically occupied -lasted until A.D. 117,when a reorganized Parthian field force selected the least combat ready farthest-extended legion and attacked it by surprise.Then,thanks to their guides and guerillas,who kept them informed of the positions of the heads of the legion's columns,they slipped in between the strongest of the legions in forced day and night marches.Finally,they attacked the weakest of the remaining columns.They kept this up until Trajan sounded the retreat and gave up,one by one,the Parthian territories he had sought to control.

Source quote taken from Google Books preview:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

http://books.google.com/books?id=-zF...arthia&f=false

Furthermore Trajan didn't conquer even anywhere near to half of Parthia.From the map it appears a 1/3 at most.There were other important cities and citadels that stood in his way.Here is a map to give you an idea of how much further Trajan would have to go to take all of Parthia let alone India.

[Caesar Germanico]

other roman emperors wanted to sack the city,not hold it
i think his message to the senate "i am to old to continue" is true but i think also he had no real intention to take all of parthia,he knew it would take decades and costant warfare to do it
rome could go to india,but it needed a new strong expansion policy that would need many emperors to complete it
the problem was that persia was nt like the one of darius

[Caesar Germanico]

from that quote it sounds like that the romans returned home with a depleted army,not really true

[Xellos_Moon]

Didnt a Huge Jewish revolt broke out at that point?

[Blatta Optima Maxima]

I think its obvious disease would have killed him off,if the guerrilla warfare of the Parthians didn't seriously deplete his army. The Parthian's most likely would have forced him to turn back the further east he went.Trajan basically took Ctestiphon without a fight and faced very weak resistance because the Parthians themselves were in a civil war and probably knew that their best chances was to avoid fighting Trajan's main army head on .The thing about the Parthians is they were a very decentralized state and could trade one capital with another which offered them some leeway for resistance.The Jewish revolt diverted Trajan's troops,but he was already starting to have problems before that revolt .Parthia was in a very weak state as a result of previous and current civil wars,but they proved they could mount an effective guerilla resistance as mentioned earlier in Trajan's failed siege of Hatra.Could Trajan have conquered all of Parthia if he was younger? Hard to tell,but from reading sources it appears doubtful.If he did,I don't believe that he would be able to hold on to it,and he would be constantly battling revolts that were springing up everywhere . He most assuredly wouldn't have conquered all of India in my opinion. Furthermore, other Roman emperors conquered Ctestiphon,but were unable to hold it and forced to leave as a result of a determined resistance.

Here's a quote from Consequences of Failure by William R.Corson concerning Trajan's campaign and guerrilla type tactics being used against Trajan's armies.

Source quote taken from Google Books preview:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

http://books.google.com/books?id=-zF...arthia&f=false

Furthermore Trajan didn't conquer even anywhere near to half of Parthia.From the map it appears a 1/3 at most.There were other important cities and citadels that stood in his way.Here is a map to give you an idea of how much further Trajan would have to go to take all of Parthia let alone India.

So... It was a parthian strategem, rather than bad luck? Maybe they weren't such epic losers afterall.

Oh, and 12 to 1? Didn't the romans defeat much more numerous parthian forces?

[Erich Hartmann]

Correct,the overall Parthian strategem was too harass Trajan's armies as they marched through Parthia.The only Parthian force of sizeable repute that was defeated, was against a rebel Parthian prince named Sanatruces who hastily assembled an army and decided to challenge Trajan head on.Osroes(also named Chosroes) the real king had evacuated Ctestiphon before the forces of Rome came near and was gathering an army to harass Trajan since he was initially very unprepared when Trajan entered his territories.Trajan was also pretty smart to take full advantage of the ongoing civil war and instability in Parthia by offering to put a son of Osroes on the throne as a puppet ruler.

From A History of the Roman World form 30.B.C. to A.D. 138 by Edward Togo Salmon

He and Parthamaspates then overcame the forces of Sanatruces in a hard-fought battle.Parthamaspates was duly crowned Parthian king at Ctestiphon.Such a victory for Trajan was a purely nominal one and short-lived.Parthamaspates was expelled by Chrosroes the moment Roman forces evacuated Ctestiphon.Trajan's attempt to conquer lower Mesopotamia had failed.

Source taken from Google books preview

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

http://books.google.com/books?id=jzO...truces&f=false

Edit:

@ Caesar Germanico

I suspect Trajan did lose a decent amount of troops fighting against Hatra,and a Roman governor sent to quell a rebellion was defeated with his army in an ambush.Things didn't at all go as smoothly as he planned.I agree with you about the taking of Parthia would require a much larger period of time.Perhaps Trajan could have accomplished this if he was much younger,but I feel that he would have been constantly fighting off rebellions once he took all of Parthia.Trajan may have then decided to take a small strip of India if he took all of Parthia,but I think he would have been wise enough to stop there and consolidate his gains since his armies and supplies would be way over stretched.Then when he eventiually dies he would probably lose most of his gains as what happened when Hadrian came to power.In my personal opinion,I don't think Trajan ,even though he was a very good general,was an equal to Alexander,but I also think in 400 years time the armies of Parthia and India had become a little more advanced in their understanding of battlefield strategy and tactics since Alexander the Great.

Edit:I'm trying to be fair as to what Trajan could accomplish,but Trajan was actually already losing his gains before he died,and with Hadrian recognizing the abandonment of those claims,I'd have to agree that Rome as mentioned by others in this forum simply didn't have the logistics to accomplish such a lofty goal.Besides being constantly harassed along the way to India,they'd have to divvy out men to garrison places they conquered which would eat up their available manpower.

@Xellos Moon
The Kitos revolt, which was a revolt of Jews in Mesopotamia,Egypt,Cyrenaica, and Cyprus also diverted some troops away,though there were already problems in Parthia before more troops were being diverted to quell the revolt in 117.The revolt's timing was clearly a result of the Jews seeing the opportune time to rebel when large Roman armies were away fighting a war in Parthia.