Crassus chooses not to fight Parthia

[mathijs]

Let's say Crassus decided not to go fight the Parthians and chose to spend the rest of his days in Rome instead.
What would change, would civil war still break out between Caesar and Pompey?




And what if civil war did break out? Which side would Crassus pick, and would his wealth be of any influence in the civil war?

[Basil II the B.S]

It would not have changed much.

The structure of the Roman Republic at the time was not sustainable. To survive Hannibal, Rome enacted reforms that granted enormous powers to successful generals. Due to the nature of the Roman chain of command, being one Consult the one of optimates and the other the one of populares, you'd always have 1 big patrician general vs 1 big plebeian one. Sulla vs Mario was the first. Pompey vs Caesar the second. Octavian vs Mark Anthony the third. It can't be a case that within a century the situation returned on three different occasions.

Crassus was an upper class and would have sided with Pompey. Could the addition of Crassus wealth have made the difference for his side? Pompey already had more troops than Caeasar and still lost. At Thapsus Caesar still managed to defeat a bigger army under Metellus Scipio. At Munda he defeated another bigger army under his former second Labienus. Caesar would have won regardless.

[Cyclops]

Just a note on the consulship, Patricians were excluded from one of the two positions (by the lex Licinia Sextia), but the other was not reserved for them. There were occasions when no patrician served as consul as plebes were elected to both posts, but there were plenty of plebeian families allied to the cause of the Optimates, just as there were patrician families supporting and often leading the Populare party (eg Scipii and Julii).

The breakdown of the republic was underway from the time of the Gracchi, when the Optimates preferred to slaughter Populares leaders in the streets rather than negotiate a settlement to see the state continue.

The Gracchi mobilised the plebeian tribunate and the various assemblies for new political purposes which put strain on good relations with the Senatorial class: they were slaughtered for their efforts. Marius took an illegal sequence of consecutive consulships (it seemed vital at the time so everyone agreed at first) and was the first to use his army to change the state of play when he did not like the direction the state was taking: so long as he lived he could browbeat the Optimates into sullen silence. Sulla reversed his settlement with a coup that proved equally unsustainable: his reforms did not survive his retirement. So both the aristocratic and commoner parties contributed to the breakdown of the state.

It is as though generals and other leaders consumed the legitimacy of the republic to feed their appetite for glory and power. Marius' unprecedented sequence of Consulships, necessary to reform the army and defeat the wandering barbarian Cimbri and Teutones set the bar very high. To match his glory Sulla revived the office of Dictator, which no one had held for donkey's years. The triumvirs passed around honours among themselves in breach of all law and custom, with Caesar granted multiple provinces and a huge army to gain wealth and glory away from Rome.

Caesar's Dictatorship for Life (and flirting with actual kingship) was just another step on the road to absolute monarchy that begins with Marius. I wonder where it ended? Even Augustus honoured Republican forms. Perhaps the Tetrarchy was when any pretence of rule by the Senate and People of Rome died.

Once Rome overcame all serious foreign threats the constitution was no longer robust enough to contain or satisfy ambitious and able men. It took a while for the habit of cooperation to die, and evil cads like Cato the Elder did not topple the spirit that sustained the Quirites in the face of Punic doom.

The specific question about Crassus can be answered quite simply: he needed a glorious military victory to match the achievements his young ally Caesar (already scoring some glory in Gaul) and Pompey (who was already "the great" for his exotic victories in Anatolia, Caucuses, vs pirates etc etc). There weren't many glorious enemies to fight. Once Crassus died the only glory to be had was in killing other Romans, which Caesar and Pompey set about doing as soon as they reasonably could.

So Crassus had to have a war, and if it wasn't with the Parthians then it would have been with Pompey. I don't see him winning either one, but if he did, then the next war would be with his friend Caesar.

The forms of Rome state were breaking down, and the new forms were decided in battle.

[Roma_Victrix]

Basil and Cyclops answered this question masterfully. Bravo! Thanks for the detailed arguments.

I also think Crassus wouldn't have stood a chance against Caesar alone, and if he sided with Pompey, then perhaps the war would have dragged out further than it did. However, I think Caesar would have won anyway. After that, who's to say if he would be killed in a conspiracy or not, but he would most likely end up on top, for however long he could manage before being toppled. As Basil and Cyclops have said, though, the Republic was a fragile one and another (like Augustus) would have simply filled the shoes of Caesar in that case. Sulla attempted his own reforms, but I'm not sure how anyone could have saved the Republic without a complete overhaul and divorce of civilian and military power.

[conon394]

I would concur with - Basil and Cyclops and R_V...

In general Caesar was simply better than - his rivals - at inspiring his men and holding their loyalty, and being a General, at being lucky and at winning. So I would agree he wins. But remains the same man unwilling to not quite shatter the Republic's corpse altogether and kill his opponents en - mass and thus still likely to be left in the bad day eventually.

[hellheaven1987]

The only way to prevent civil war was to find a Minster of Defense and properly merged the new professional military into government...

[Basil II the B.S]

Btw the post-Cannae reform I mentioned include the removal of the 6 months limit for generals and the requirment of the title of consul to lead the field (non-garrison) armies. The concept of the ''general-emperor'' that then becomes popular and part of the tradition in imperial years is born there. It's what gives Caesar and the others the time to form a life-lasting bond with the troops they are assigned, amass them and eventually revolt against the state.

[hellheaven1987]

Btw the post-Cannae reform I mentioned include the removal of the 6 months limit for generals and the requirment of the title of consul to lead the field (non-garrison) armies. The concept of the ''general-emperor'' that then becomes popular and part of the tradition in imperial years is born there. It's what gives Caesar and the others the time to form a life-lasting bond with the troops they are assigned, amass them and eventually revolt against the state.

Life-lasting bond is not the issue; the problem is this new professional military class had no representive in Senate to represent their interest hence they had to rely on their politician commander to voice for them, which created a political bond between commander and his troops (as his troops needed the commander to grab state benefit while the commander needed the troops to play his political game). Perhaps because Roman Republic was based on a militia military system and its ideology was not military center hence it could not cope well with the permanent professional military system.

[Cyclops]

Btw the post-Cannae reform I mentioned include the removal of the 6 months limit for generals and the requirment of the title of consul to lead the field (non-garrison) armies. The concept of the ''general-emperor'' that then becomes popular and part of the tradition in imperial years is born there. It's what gives Caesar and the others the time to form a life-lasting bond with the troops they are assigned, amass them and eventually revolt against the state.

At the time it probably seemed like a smart and necessary solution.

The next step down the road to monarchy was the move to full professionalism over citizen soldier status, once again, a very necessary reform instituted by none other than the genus Marius who was one of the first to abuse the direct loyalty generated by a single consul (enjoying repeated serial terms) who paid the men (albeit from public funds) but also distributed the spoils of war, and arranged retirement settlements for them.

The final step was the private armies of the Social Wars and Triumvirate. "I have the money, why should the state pay? Proimise i'll disband them once the crisis is over" .

[Lord Oda Nobunaga]

Crassus had no choice but to invade Parthia in order to gain accomplishments that rivaled Pompey's and Caesar's. Crassus had not been a relevant player in Roman power politics since the Spartacus Revolt. His only saving grace was that he was informally in charge together with Pompey and Caesar, and was actively bankrolling Caesar all throughout. In that regard he wasn't too different from Cato or Cicero at this point, or indeed Pompey himself, with the key exception that Pompey had greater accomplishments.

Crassus' son was serving with Caesar in Gaul while Crassus himself was sitting idly in Syria which he acquired from his predecessor Aulus Gabinius. If you will recall Aulus Gabinius was given the option of intervening in the Parthian Succession War or intervening in the Egyptian Succession (after he had already intervened in Judea), Gabinius chose Egypt because it would make him more money. Something which Caesar, Pompey and Crassus agreed to after Ptolemy XII paid them as well. Gabinius was going to be prosecuted by the Senate for bribery though he was saved last minute by Caesar and Cicero, however he was required to give Syria over to Crassus, something Crassus wanted in order to remain relevant and to that end he recalled his son from Gaul to serve with him in Parthia.

The opportunity to invade Parthia had already been lost by the time Crassus came to Syria but since Judea and Egypt had been quelled Crassus had no other choices to embark on a grand campaign. Not having their say in Parthia was probably reason enough to go in there and grab their slice, further backed by Armenian requests for aid against the Parthians. Having lost the campaign and being killed, together with his son doomed his house and effectively destroyed the Triumvirate. But assuming he decided to stay home not much would have changed in my opinion. The Civil War might still have occurred as Cato and Cicero wanted to oppose the rising star that was Caesar and Pompey had some strange Freudian fixation with ensuring that it would be the case.

Also remember though that both Crassus and Pompey had backed Sulla before turning into power brokers themselves, not to mention effectively purging the also influential Lucullus. Crassus had always been opposed by the more conservative senators throughout his career, Pompey had been opposed as well but he was more willing to make compromise, Caesar for his part seemed to play both sides but was never on good terms with the senate, Cicero was willing to play both sides as well as a means to accomplish his ends which created a quagmire.

I can't see Crassus supporting Cato and Cicero and siding with Pompey when he could just as easily choose to back Caesar as it is inconsistent with what we know about Crassus' character. It would be easy to see Crassus just accepting that he is not the protagonist, choosing to back Caesar as the face of the movement as it were and cutting Pompey out of the picture entirely, while also dealing a blow to the Senate. It wouldn't be too different from how Mark Antony was declared an outlaw by Octavian, himself backed by the Senate and Cicero in that decree, and then Mark Antony gaining the support of Lepidus and his legions. It would have effectively secured Crassus' position together with Caesar and eventually his son Publius would have become one of Caesar's main subordinates. Though the possibility that Crassus would also choose to mediate between Caesar and Pompey is also there, as it would have secured his power and made him relevant once again. I could see Crassus forcing the Senate and Pompey to concede to Caesar's demands. Though eventually Pompey and Crassus would have died which would leave Caesar alone in the picture and he could have just taken most of Crassus' and Pompey's base over to his side, leaving the Senate with few little to work with except those who would switch sides in order to oppose Caesar.

[Mamlaz]

Has anyone ever reasoned as to why Crassus did not recruit foot archers or slingers as Publius Bassus did?

I understand Crete was not within his domain, buy a section of Syria was, why not bring foot archers to a campaign against Parthians ffs?

Were Parthians seen as so weak during this period that they could be underestimated to such a degree?

Because this was not nearly the first encounter of Romans with eastern cavalry, they have been fighting(and often winning) against forces with lots of cavalry in the Middle East for decades up until that point.

[hellheaven1987]

Crassus probably did not know Parthia well; but then neither did Caesar hired his famous/infamous barbarian cavalry before his Gallic campaign.