Could Caesar defeat the Parthians?

[Henry X]

Well, we've all heard the story, Caesar conquers Gaul, wins the civil war, and becomes dictator. But then Brutus stabs Caesar while they were playing Battleship. What if Caesar hadn't been stabbed, because he listened to his soothsayer?

Many historians believe that Caesar would have led a campaign against the Parthians to avenge his friend Crassus. So, could he defeat them and how much farther would the Roman Empire have expanded?

[antares24]

this is a question i have asken myself too. Caesar had ammassed a big number of legions for this expedition, with ausiliary cavalry and a big number of warmachines. When he was killed he was planning to depart from Roma in a few days to join his forces.
If i remember well i had readen that his plan was to attack the parthians by Siria, defeat them and conquer their lands and then proceed to the north, while at the same time another attack was to be conducted by another roman general across the danube to conquer the lands around the Black sea, and then turn south between the black sea and the caspius to meet with Caesar.
In my opinion he had the possibility of defeat them, he had precise accounts of the battle of Carrae so he know wich mistakes avoid while fighting the parthians, and he also had enough manpower to crush them, not to mention his military genius.
The possibility for the romans to rule such a big area, without natural good defendable borders for a long time however are different, the empire then would have become really to big to be efficiently governed.

[Sleeper]

Yes. Caesar was genius on a level possibly unmatched. Antony could have defeated the Parthians, if not for his shortcomings and a series of bad decisions, one after the next.

[William the Bastard]

This brings back some old memories. One of the first threads I made on TWC was a thread on this exact musing. Here is a link so you can check it out. LINK. The best post is the last post (even though JKM killed the thread with it).

[Hookah Smoking Caterpiller]

my my we seem to be very interested it Rome at the moment.

Caesar could probably have defeated Parthia but I doubt that the Romans would hold the territory for long, unlike Alexander and the Persian Kings before him the Romans did not create satrapies, they preferred to assimilate the territory into romanized provinces; however due to the great distance from Parthia to Rome, and her vast territory it would be difficult for any general to hold down the province; regardless of the numbers of legions; The Britons rebelled at least three times during the first 20 years of occupation by the Romans; Parthia; a unified kingdom would present a more difficult beast to finally put to rest than a group of disunited Celtic tribes

[The Persian Cataphract]

I think not. A vast history spanning almost 700 years of Iranian-Roman conflicts is more than enough for me to rely on, and if the fact that fleeting successes swayed between both sides isn't enough, I'd like to add that this proposal of Caesar being able to defeat the Parthians all the way to Mithradatkart is not only silly, arrogant and condescending, but do flip the coin and ask yourselves if Pacorus and Quintus Labienus together would have been able to reach as far as the city of Rome during the height of their conquests?

Yeah, I did not think so. There is a difference between counter-factual theory, and wishy-washy thinking. Marcus Antonius was defeated twice with more than double the manpower than his late colleague Marcus Licinius Crassus, just outside of Ganzacas, during a time of decline for the Parthians; Now some of you contend that Julius Caesar just could have swooped past Nîsâ during the second Golden Age of the Pahlavân? The Romans attempted both the route through the deserts of Assyria, and twice through the more properly advised Armenian route; Both initial attempts ended in failure.

Could someone explain to me how the proposition of Caesar's hypothetical conquest makes sense? I've heard of these silly theories many times, and yet I do ask myself, could Caesar, in Crassus' place, outwit Surena or his master, Orodes II? I say no. Carrhae was not only tactical brilliance, but the strategical Parthian involvement from the very first frame... It is easy to be wise after making many crucial discoveries. Or so thought Marcus Antonius... And we know what happened to the old chap.

[jackwei]

I think not. A vast history spanning almost 700 years of Iranian-Roman conflicts is more than enough for me to rely on, and if the fact that fleeting successes swayed between both sides isn't enough, I'd like to add that this proposal of Caesar being able to defeat the Parthians all the way to Mithradatkart is not only silly, arrogant and condescending, but do flip the coin and ask yourselves if Pacorus and Quintus Labienus together would have been able to reach as far as the city of Rome during the height of their conquests?

Yeah, I did not think so. There is a difference between counter-factual theory, and wishy-washy thinking. Marcus Antonius was defeated twice with more than double the manpower than his late colleague Marcus Licinius Crassus, just outside of Ganzacas, during a time of decline for the Parthians; Now some of you contend that Julius Caesar just could have swooped past Nîsâ during the second Golden Age of the Pahlavân? The Romans attempted both the route through the deserts of Assyria, and twice through the more properly advised Armenian route; Both initial attempts ended in failure.

Could someone explain to me how the proposition of Caesar's hypothetical conquest makes sense? I've heard of these silly theories many times, and yet I do ask myself, could Caesar, in Crassus' place, outwit Surena or his master, Orodes II? I say no. Carrhae was not only tactical brilliance, but the strategical Parthian involvement from the very first frame... It is easy to be wise after making many crucial discoveries. Or so thought Marcus Antonius... And we know what happened to the old chap.

Caesar after all the experience in his gallic wars and civl war etc with his miltary genius would really fail an invasion on Parthia say in 44BC? It is very likely Caesar would be successful and prehaps annex small parts, however when he goes he'll have his heir Octavian in charge and will appoint good generals hopefully to finish off the job.

It isn't likely that Caesar would make the same mistake as Crassus if he invaded Parthia, much later on in 44BC and i am sure Caesar would find a way to beat the Parthians after all he managed to survive Alesia and Pharsalus and other dangers so i am sure he'd be ok and ready for this.

[The Persian Cataphract]

Again, let me remind you about the fact that the Parthians tackled not only the Seleucids, but also the Graeco-Bactrians, and had their share of enemies, historically more dangerous than the Romans, including the Saka, Indo-Scythians, Tocharians and finally the Kushan empire; To assume that Caesar's military legacy tops anything in your sensibilities, just because of a preconceived assessment on the poorly documented Eastern world, is in my perception folly. Crassus was not wet behind his ears, even though Classicists throughout the ages have attempted to write off the battle of Carrhaë as some sort of a case of Roman incompetence, rather than Parthian brilliance. A personal query for you would be if I asked you who Surena was, or how extensive your knowledge is of the Sûrên-Pahlavân military legacy? This man belonged to a clan who later expanded in India, as far as the Mathura corridor, as the Indo-Parthians; Their high status was retained during the Sassanian dynasty, and if not merely because the clan produced fine generals, then because of the fact that they had experience in safe-guarding the eastern frontiers.

Again, as I previously mentioned; Flip the coin of the argument. Does the idea of Quintus Labienus and Prince of Princes Pacorus annexing Italy sound rational to you? They did after all manage to annex the entire Asia Minor and the Roman East as far as the Levant. A feat that was repeated during the late Sassanian times under Shâhîn and Shahrbarâz. Except, they manage to wrest Egypt too and reach as far as Carthage, prepared for the siege. Even then, the prospect doesn't sound rational to me at all, not in the least. Even after the Romans had sacked Seleucia-Ctesiphon over five times, both during the times of Parthian and Sassanian possession, they could not defeat the Iranians. Nomads to the East and the North, Indo-Scythians, Tocharians, Kushans, Hephtalites and the Blue Turks did far much more damage to Iranian interests.

I care little for the dogma of the supposedly "inherent superiority of Roman generalship". Belisarius was defeated twice in battle, culminating at Callinicum, Emperor Macrinus was defeated at Nisibis by the Parthians at their weakest state (During civil war and during Sassanid rebellion), and even the lauded Julianus Apostata (The Apostate) landed with a campaign ending abrupt. What is this? A refusal to accept the fact that both Iranians and Graeco-Romans swinged their hardest punches at each other and no one really gets the upper hand? Only the mention of Azarethes by Procopius saved him from disappearing into the obscurity of history, yet he defeated Belisarius at Callinicum...? Pose then to yourself the question if Orodes did not assassinate Surena, could the very same victor from Carrhae have repeated his success against another triumvir?

Which again furthers my point... What do we achieve by thinking in these absurd lines? I think that being linear in the assessment of a counter-factual hypothesis is to trivialize history.

[jackwei]

I can't be asked to argue with you or agree with you since we all know what the majority of people here think. We know a prepared and valiant man like Caesar and been able to manuver very fast with his troops and does the unexpected.

You underestimate that man Julius Caesar and what he achieved and i am sure if he went to the east he'd be prepared and ready and what seem to forget and learn if of his tactics and experience in the gallic wars and how quick he managed to defeat pompey magnus.what you must know too is how well he uses his allies in campaign and puts them to good use in battle.

If Trajan managed to reach as far as the gulf and was to old to go further and yes he didn't captured hatra and rebellions were behind then i am sure Caesar could too and prehaps even better. Caesar did the Impossible and always manages to get himself out of trouble in battle and your talking as Parthia is invincble, which is aload of rubbish and what you remember wasn't it the Roman invasions that destroyed Parthia and was replaced by the sassinds.

At the end of the day Caesar was a better position then any other commander before to take on Parthia and this time has more well experience then the others so i very much doubt your parthia would be able withstand the might of Caesar and his Legions.

[The Persian Cataphract]

You underestimate that man Julius Caesar and what he achieved and i am sure if he went to the east he'd be prepared and ready and what seem to forget and learn if of his tactics and experience in the gallic wars and how quick he managed to defeat pompey magnus.what you must know too is how well he uses his allies in campaign and puts them to good use in battle.

I have not stated nor implied such a thing in this thread; Julius Caesar was a military genius of his time, and a true rival to the likes of Pompey and Lucullus. It is however insipid to forget Parthian military prowess, and people do tend to forget the huge successes of Mithradates I The Philhellene, Phraates II and finally Mithradates II The Great, up until the age of Orodes II. It is insipid to dismiss Parthian successes and blindly asribe hypothesized victory to Julius Caesar if only because of preconceived dogmas.

If Trajan managed to reach as far as the gulf and was to old to go further and yes he didn't captured hatra and rebellions were behind then i am sure Caesar could too and prehaps even better. Caesar did the Impossible and always manages to get himself out of trouble in battle and your talking as Parthia is invincble, which is aload of rubbish and what you remember wasn't it the Roman invasions that destroyed Parthia and was replaced by the sassinds.

First of all, it's the Persian Gulf. Not just "the Gulf". Second of all, I'm sick and tired of the monstrously overrated Trajanic campaign. Septimius Severus did much more damage. The Parthians did not offer any larger resistance against the Romans, even as far as Charax and Susa. Trajan left behind himself unguarded flanks and a rear, including the fortified city of Hatra. Do you even know why the Parthians largely refused to give any greater battle at this moment? Simply because the empire was devastated in a trilateral civil war. So much for Roman military prowesss; Seems more like opportunism to me. Something which Septimius Severus repeated, during Parthian wars to the East. Twice this ploy and the usage of the improved Roman logistical model worked; However with Caracalla and Macrinus, it would turn to a sudden halt.

Thirdly, do not put words into my mouth. Nowhere do I claim nor imply any such absurd thing as "Parthian invincibility". I do however question the trivial nature of this given counter-factual scenario. You know what's rubbish? Your blatant ignorance on Parthian affairs. The succession of the Sassanids did not rise due to Roman exploits. If you even read the largely fictional Kârnâmag-î Ardashîr-î Pâpagân, you would have reached a different conclusion. You probably even believe that the Sassanids were just simply "resurgent Achaemenids from Persis proper".

At the end of the day Caesar was a better position then any other commander before to take on Parthia and this time has more well experience then the others so i very much doubt your parthia would be able withstand the might of Caesar and his Legions.

Cute. I trust you are done with your irrational boasting.

Well Parthia was defeated several times by the Romans after Carrhae.

The coin has a flipside to it as well. By the time of Artabanus IV, it was reached per agreement to restore the Euphrates as the recognized border between the Romans and the Parthians. We have to be fair when we assess Roman and Parthian martial ardour. The success owed to the likes of Trajan or Septimius Severus is largely due to improved logistics and the signs of finally understanding the fundamental weaknesses of the Parthian military machine (Which relied on the seasonal model), and taking advantage of civil wars and skirmishes between hostile High Clans or wars in the eastern frontier.

Remember, it was the same Parthian military machine, used by the early Sassanian monarchs Ardeshîr and Shâpûr that once again proved that the Arsacid model by any means wasn't inherently inferior. They achieved spectacular victories against both the Kushans and the Romans. Roman sources even go as far as calling (Mistakenly) both of the mentioned King of Kings "Parthian"... Which wasn't really a mistake, as Ardashîr's Clan of Sâsân had Parthian roots (As opposed to their client rivals, the Vâzarangîg), and if the account of Shâpûr's birth carries some shred of truth, he was a child of two regal houses; The Arsacids and the Sassanids.

It is kind of mind-boggling, isn't it?

They were more interested in gaining the upperhand in political disputes with Parthia (like the issue of Armenian rulers), protecting their eastern provinces and vassals and of course avenging the defeat in Carrhae.

Again, the coin has a flipside to it; During the early Imperial days of the Parthians, the hugely successful Phraates II endeavoured to campaign as far as Syria, only to wheel around to meet marauding Tocharians; He owed his successes to his father before him, Mithradates I who also expressed a wish to go as far west as Syria; Instead Eucratides of the Graeco-Bactrians had risen up in the rear, forcing Mithradates to wheel around to face the threat; It results in utter defeat for the Graeco-Bactrians, and the serve-esse for the future invasion of the Indo-Scythian conqueror Maues. By the time the Romans got to the political scene of the Near East, the Parthians were remarkably quiet on their western frontier. There was a reason for this.

Mithradates II The Great had concluded a meeting with the Romans, spear-headed by Sulla; An agreement was reached. The Parthians, in historical terms, were foolish to accept the Roman word, because soon thereafter, Pompey evicted the Parthian shahrdârân of the client states along the end of the Euphrates, and immediately meddled in the Armenian issue; Especially after the battle of Tigranocerta. The final insult came when Crassus announced his ambition. To the Parthians, there was a much stronger will to safeguard the East, and understandably because it was their main economical lifeline.

Orodes in his infinite wisdom executed general Surena for his success.

Indeed he did; Orodes was more shrewd than Plutarch gives him credit for. Orodes was one of the few Parthian King of Kings who clearly believed in centralization, and probably made a correct assessment of Surena's influence as he the holder of the Eastern fiefdoms. Surena had shown loyalty, but the Arsacid house had little trust to entrusting the Clans to support the military backbone.

This also largely explains why Orodes prepared to send his son, Pacorus, with an army in an expedition against Syria. An Imperial Parthian army, rather than a feudalistic army of mixed bondsmen and heavy horse lead by upper nobility. Surena had previous successes as well, and given the tone of Plutarch, Surena was a man of clear renown, so it is unlikely that Orodes issued the assassination on behalf of jealousy. My assessment is that Orodes made use of Surena for as long as he would have been of use.

[Last Roman]

Again, let me remind you about the fact that the Parthians tackled not only the Seleucids, but also the Graeco-Bactrians,

Both of whom were weak compared to Rome.

[Kaapeli]

Well Parthia was defeated several times by the Romans after Carrhae. And the Romans didn't even make a serious attempt to occupy Parthian core territories. They were more interested in gaining the upperhand in political disputes with Parthia (like the issue of Armenian rulers), protecting their eastern provinces and vassals and of course avenging the defeat in Carrhae.
I don't see why Caesars campaign couldn't have possibly been as succesful as Trajans much later.

I've heard of these silly theories many times, and yet I do ask myself, could Caesar, in Crassus' place, outwit Surena or his master, Orodes II? I say no.

Orodes in his infinite wisdom executed general Surena for his success.

[Stalins Ghost]

Personally, I think there is a single most answer to such question: There is no way we can possibly say either way. I really do not think there is any point whatsoever in trying to estimate the result. We can point out the strategic advantages each side held, but we simply cannot estimate a result. There is no way we can even attempt to guess at the strategies and tactics used by the respective generals. We can't even use other examples to provide comparison, since most bare little to no relation to the situation when Caesar was planning his invasion. The closest we get is Crassus, and most evidence points towards him being a far inferior commander to Caesar. And I suppose Antony's attempt could come in to play, but honestly, despite being effectively taught by Caesar, I really do not believe he acts as an effective example.

Despite all we know about Caesar's brilliance, it mostly relates to his encounters with Celtic and Roman forces. We simply cannot say if he would have been as effective against eastern forces. I personally think he was fully capable of dealing some serious damage, but there's just no way we can give a concrete answer.

It never happened. We cannot evaluate it.

[Marie Louise von Preussen]

It is interesting that when we talk about the history of Rome and Parthia, and their successors the Byzantines and the Sassanids, we enter the issue of a big stalemate. Surely both sides had astounding victories and great heroic commanders coupled with incompetent figures and even ordinary ones incapable of defeating their foes. But none of them ever managed to strike each other decisively, only to wear themselves by an almost constant attriton due to hostility, and in the end they weren't responsible for their both ends as one would expect from such bitter rivalry.

[Ummon]

I don't remember the exact figures, but I seem to recollect Caesar planned to field 10 legions with auxiliaries. I think it is very likely that Caesar would have wiped the floor with essentially anything.

[Mathias]

I don't remember the exact figures, but I seem to recollect Caesar planned to field 10 legions with auxiliaries. I think it is very likely that Caesar would have wiped the floor with essentially anything.

I find to this simple reasoning to be quite sufficient in this matter.

[antares24]

I don't remember the exact figures, but I seem to recollect Caesar planned to field 10 legions with auxiliaries. I think it is very likely that Caesar would have wiped the floor with essentially anything.

if i remember the figures it was something like 16 legions and more than 10.000 cavalry, not to mention that he would probably have recruited more ausiliares in the east, and would have been supported by the eastern allied kingdoms.
The parthian cities would have been levelled and in the case of revolt the population would have been mass enslaved and deported (similar to gaul).
Who know what the fate of the area would have been if a romanization of it started?

[Excelsior]

Of course Caesar could have defeated the Parthians - just so long as he didn't get caught out in the open. Carrhae was indeed a perfect tactical victory of firepower supplemented by shock against a sedentary foe. I doubt he could have conquered Parthia though.

Publius Ventidius, a subordiante under Caesar in Gaul, went into Asia Minor and Syria and defeated the encroaching Parthians three times in 39-38 B.C., making sure he didn't afflict himself the way Crassus did in the open. Remember, the Romans were masters of adaptation and applied science etc., and it is safe to assume that Ventedius was to be part of the expedition planned under Caesar just a few years before he went in to deal with the Parthians, thus the manner he did beat the Parthians was likely influenced under Caesar's ideas.

Apparently a canal was proposed to be built at the isthmus of Corinth, which would have supplied Caesar's army efficiently with the material needed (field catapults etc.?).

I doubt the Roman Empire would have ever went much further than it actually did. The imperial treasury wouldn't allow conquests where encroachments proved successful, as in northern Germania.

I think Romans and Parthians/Sassanids pretty much cancelled each other out throughout the centuries.

Cheers

[Ummon]

Assuming he didn't make such silly mistakes as Anthony later did by leaving his supply train undefended, and losing it, I have little doubt that Caesar was a good enough general, to use artillery against the Parthians, and sack their cities one by one.

[Dr. Croccer]

I don't know. Caesar was a tactical mastermind and could find solutions for almost all problems but the Parthian Empire was HUGE and it took the Romans lots of military campaigns and two Emperors and they only reached Persepolis before being pushed back.