What went wrong for Julian?

[Valentinian Victor]

I've been rereading a good many of the ancient authors who wrote about Julian's Sasanid Persian campaign.
It seems everything was going well upto a certain point, when disaster struck.
Now, depending on which historian you read, this disaster was one of at least two things-

1) Julian was approached by supposedly disaffected Sasanid's who proved less than trustworthy and literally led Julian astray.
2) Julian literally 'burned his boats', denying him and his army another escape route.

After this point the campaign takes a distinct turn for the worst and Julian is forced on the defensive.

What do you other good folk think was the point where it all went wrong for Julian?

[Nakharar]

2) I think i read a brief book on the entire history of the Byzantine Empire(had a chapter on Julian). I think he was overconfident... when reading i thought he had no chance of loosing at one stage..

Also one of his mistakes was i think not knowing the enemy, when retreating its obvious, your men are hungry, in a foreign land, thirsty and tired after campaigning and just want to get home, then in the desert which is hot and dry, the Sassanids who are happy the Romans were retreating in their desert conditions there used to have no problem harrasing and raiding Unprepared Romans, isnt that how Julian eventualy died??

[PSEUDO ROMANUS]

What do you other good folk think was the point where it all went wrong for Julian?

His death

[Gen.jamesWolfe]

the man who killed Julian...

[Valentinian Victor]

the man who killed Julian...

That of course was the point where Julians problems ended, but in reality we have to consider where his campaign began to unravel. And from what the ancient authors state it was just before his march onto Ctesiphon when the campaign took a turn for the worst.
The vast majority of the christian authors state that it was Julian's pride, rashness and over confidence that led to his downfall, the pagan authors are rather more charitable.

[Gen.jamesWolfe]

That of course was the point where Julians problems ended, but in reality we have to consider where his campaign began to unravel. And from what the ancient authors state it was just before his march onto Ctesiphon when the campaign took a turn for the worst.
The vast majority of the christian authors state that it was Julian's pride, rashness and over confidence that led to his downfall, the pagan authors are rather more charitable.

It wasn't meant as a factual interpretation.

I am well aware of all this though.

[Valentinian Victor]

It wasn't meant as a factual interpretation.

I am well aware of all this though.

But what do you actually think was the catalyst and exact point when it went wrong? Do you believe the tales that indicate Julian was led astray by deceitful Sasanids? That he was overconfident of victory and this led him to make rash decisions? That he did not fully realise the size of the forces arrayed against him? That he misjudged the Sasanid's willingness to fight? That there was another reason entirely?

[Gäiten]

IMHO, some reasons:

I believe Julian`s most important mistake was in underestimating the Sassanian military power. They were on a much higher level than the Germanic tribes he had to fight before.

Splitting his forces into two army groups was a grave mistake. He should have formed only a huge army group. Dividing up your forces in face of Sassanians is a dangerous game (see Alexander Severus strategic blunder and defeat by Ardashir I. in 233 AD).

Furthermore the Sassanian strategy of prolonged warfare and hit`n run attacks slowly weakened the Roman Army. Julian could not catch the Sassanians and forced them to give battle. The Sassanians could almost ever choose the battlefields they wanted.

For his invasion Julian chose the classic route Trajan and Septimus Severus had chosen before him. It was very easy for the Sassanian command to understand his plan and decide how to fight him.

Julian had to conquer many fortified cities and fortresses on his way to Ctesiphon. He won each battle, but the losses he could not replace (the Sassanians could).

When he reached Ctesiphon he did not even make an attempt to siege the city. Why he did not, I have ever wondered about, but IMHO it shall be obviously, when he reached Ctesiphon he was so weakened he could not dare to siege the city. He did have neither the siege equipment nor the men. The Roman logistic chains were probably cut by Sassanian attacks, the major Royal Sassanian army group was approaching, so he was in danger to get encircled.

I believe, the failing of conquering Ctesiphon and the following decision to retreat was the turning point.

[Valentinian Victor]

IMHO, some reasons:

I believe Julian`s most important mistake was in underestimating the Sassanian military power. They were on a much higher level than the Germanic tribes he had to fight before.

Splitting his forces into two army groups was a grave mistake. He should have formed only a huge army group. Dividing up your forces in face of Sassanians is a dangerous game (see Alexander Severus strategic blunder and defeat by Ardashir I. in 233 AD).

Furthermore the Sassanian strategy of prolonged warfare and hit`n run attacks slowly weakened the Roman Army. Julian could not catch the Sassanians and forced them to give battle. The Sassanians could almost ever choose the battlefields they wanted.

For his invasion Julian chose the classic route Trajan and Septimus Severus had chosen before him. It was very easy for the Sassanian command to understand his plan and decide how to fight him.

Julian had to conquer many fortified cities and fortresses on his way to Ctesiphon. He won each battle, but the losses he could not replace (the Sassanians could).

When he reached Ctesiphon he did not even make an attempt to siege the city. Why he did not, I have ever wondered about, but IMHO it shall be obviously, when he reached Ctesiphon he was so weakened he could not dare to siege the city. He did have neither the siege equipment nor the men. The Roman logistic chains were probably cut by Sassanian attacks, the major Royal Sassanian army group was approaching, so he was in danger to get encircled.

I believe, the failing of conquering Ctesiphon and the following decision to retreat was the turning point.

You got it, I too feel that right upto when he was about to attack Ctesiphon Julian was doing reasonably well. Its unclear from those authors who wrote about Julian's campaign if he fought any pitched battles or not, Muranga appears to have been a large battle at least. I am swayed by the argument that Julian listened to those Sasanid nobles who 'defected' to the Roman side. They appear to be the ones who persuaded him to burn his ships so he could not quickly bring supplies and reinforcements to Ctesiphon. But why he did this is a real mystery considering he had opened up the disused canal between the Tigris and the other river allowing him to sail his boats right upto his base of operations. Perhaps he was trying to emulate his beloved classical Greeks who 'burned their boats' to ensure that they fought heroically knowing that there was no escape if they lost. Whatever the reason was, this was a major blunder and he paid the ultimate price for it.
Now, what if he had successfully captured Ctesiphon, thats a real 'what if'...

[Gäiten]

Now, what if he had successfully captured Ctesiphon, thats a real 'what if'...

He would have plundered and pillaged the city, but then, somewhen, he would have had to retreat. Because he did not have the manpower to hold the city.

And then the Sassanians would have been burning for revenge.
The difference to the campaigns of Trajan, Verus, Severus was the Sassanians were not in a civil war. They presented a united front under one of their most dynamic and powerful kings.

So I believe, if Julian conquered Ctesiphon, the Sassanians would have annihilated the whole Roman army.

[Valentinian Victor]

He would have plundered and pillaged the city, but then, somewhen, he would have had to retreat. Because he did not have the manpower to hold the city.

And then the Sassanians would have been burning for revenge.
The difference to the campaigns of Trajan, Verus, Severus was the Sassanians were not in a civil war. They presented a united front under one of their most dynamic and powerful kings.

So I believe, if Julian conquered Ctesiphon, the Sassanians would have annihilated the whole Roman army.

I've had this debate with various scholars and historians etc. Whilst your view is an accepted one, there is another view that needs to be taken into account as well. This other view is that the fall of Ctesiphon would have sent shock waves right through the Sasanid Empire, probably prompting a number of disaffected Nobles into open rebellion, something not entirely unheard of in the Sasanid Empire. I have no doubt that Julian would have been approached by one or more of these dissidents with a view to him making them the king and then they would do the usual thing of pledging eternal friendship etc etc. There is also the idea that once news of the fall of Ctesiphon reached the Sasanids North Eastern and Eastern borders the tribes there, who on a regular basis broke out in open warfare with the Sasanids, would have taken advantage of crisis and caused chaos.
Its another of those great ponderables like 'what if Valens had waited for Gratian before attacking the Goths'?

[Gäiten]

I agree that the fall of the capital would have sent shockwaves through the Empire (Sassanid).
That would have been a huge loss of prestige for the king and things would have been more difficult for him.

However, history shows that the fall of Ctesiphon was almost ever the turning point, the Iranians (either Arsacid Parthians or Sassanians) stopped their internal squarrels and formed more an united front against the Romans.

As I said before, Shapur II. was a very dynamic and powerful king. He dominated the nobles at such a level only very few of his house did before and after him
Even the Great Clans did not dare to defy him, some had to suffer bad experiences when they confronted the king.
The Royal household troops, the kings own retinues, were very, very powerful. At least 11,000 superheavy cavalry (Immortals + Pushtigbhan) plus the Royal elephant corps.
A good core for the army.

Furthermore you shall not underestimate the strong nationalism the Sassanians induced
in their people, either. So I believe the loss of the capital to the “Unbelievers”, would have given the kings more support. As happened in 263/265 AD when the Palmyrene king Odenathus drove back Shapur I. and Ctesiphon was under siege. The eastern vassals sent immediately reinforcements and defeated the Palmyrenes.

And how may the info about Ctesiphon`s fall reached the eastern parts in time to help the Romans? The Sassanians controlled vigorously the information networks.

BTW Ctesiphon was a very powerful fortress, equipped with high quantities of missile machines and foodstuff for a long siege, guarded by a strong garrison and supported by strong forces outside the city. So I doubt that the Romans would have conquered the city.

[Valentinian Victor]

I agree that the fall of the capital would have sent shockwaves through the Empire (Sassanid).
That would have been a huge loss of prestige for the king and things would have been more difficult for him.

However, history shows that the fall of Ctesiphon was almost ever the turning point, the Iranians (either Arsacid Parthians or Sassanians) stopped their internal squarrels and formed more an united front against the Romans.

As I said before, Shapur II. was a very dynamic and powerful king. He dominated the nobles at such a level only very few of his house did before and after him
Even the Great Clans did not dare to defy him, some had to suffer bad experiences when they confronted the king.
The Royal household troops, the kings own retinues, were very, very powerful. At least 11,000 superheavy cavalry (Immortals + Pushtigbhan) plus the Royal elephant corps.
A good core for the army.

Furthermore you shall not underestimate the strong nationalism the Sassanians induced
in their people, either. So I believe the loss of the capital to the “Unbelievers”, would have given the kings more support. As happened in 263/265 AD when the Palmyrene king Odenathus drove back Shapur I. and Ctesiphon was under siege. The eastern vassals sent immediately reinforcements and defeated the Palmyrenes.

And how may the info about Ctesiphon`s fall reached the eastern parts in time to help the Romans? The Sassanians controlled vigorously the information networks.

BTW Ctesiphon was a very powerful fortress, equipped with high quantities of missile machines and foodstuff for a long siege, guarded by a strong garrison and supported by strong forces outside the city. So I doubt that the Romans would have conquered the city.

There were a number of potential candidates for toppling Sharpur II during his reign. Did not one of Sharpur II's relatives approach Constantius II about deposing Sharpur II and putting the relative in his place? And Valens was also approached by disaffected nobles I believe.
The question about information reaching the borders is an intersting one. Ammianus makes an interesting point how bad news was leant wings and an event in Britain was open news in Constantinople within a week. You cannot prevent bad news from travelling fast as they say, there were merchants and others travelling from the Roman side of the border to China and India to trade for silk, spices, gems etc. They would have carried news with them and I'm sure that once Ctesiphon fell the news would have reached every city, town and post within the Sasanid Empire within a matter of a week or two, despite the attempts to suppress it.
A very interesting point about the defences of Ctesiphon. However, Sharpur may have provided an excellent means of providing its downfall. He surrounded Ctesiphon with a series of ditches and irrigation canals and flooded the land in between. It has been speculated that Julians engineers could have utilised this to drive water under the walls of Ctesiphon, causing them to sag and therefore collapse.
I find these debates very interesting and enjoyable by the way.

[Gäiten]

There were a number of potential candidates for toppling Sharpur II during his reign. Did not one of Sharpur II's relatives approach Constantius II about deposing Sharpur II and putting the relative in his place? And Valens was also approached by disaffected nobles I believe.

Shapur`s own brother Hormuz deserted, but later was pardoned by him.
The history of the Roman and Sassanid deserters is very interesting.
Only a few were executed for treason, far more were pardoned.

The question about information reaching the borders is an intersting one. Ammianus makes an interesting point how bad news was leant wings and an event in Britain was open news in Constantinople within a week. You cannot prevent bad news from travelling fast as they say, there were merchants and others travelling from the Roman side of the border to China and India to trade for silk, spices, gems etc. They would have carried news with them and I'm sure that once Ctesiphon fell the news would have reached every city, town and post within the Sasanid Empire within a matter of a week or two, despite the attempts to suppress it.

Given the excellent road systems of the Iranians your estimation is reasonable.

A very interesting point about the defences of Ctesiphon. However, Sharpur may have provided an excellent means of providing its downfall. He surrounded Ctesiphon with a series of ditches and irrigation canals and flooded the land in between. It has been speculated that Julians engineers could have utilised this to drive water under the walls of Ctesiphon, causing them to sag and therefore collapse.

Do you have sources about that idea? How the Romans could have achieved that, I wonder. Such a feat was somewhat above the Ancients` engineering capabilities. At least you would need a high-pressure pumping system for undermining the walls.

Standard sapping would have been too dangerous due the low water levels (water would have rapidly filled the mines).

The Sassanians built some dykes on a near river, dammed the water and then unleashed the water with enough forces to smash one of the city`s reinforced gate. Happened during their Nisibis siege of 337/338.

So let us some talk about how could Julian have conquered Ctesiphon ?

I find these debates very interesting and enjoyable by the way.

So do I

[Valentinian Victor]

'Do you have sources about that idea? How the Romans could have achieved that, I wonder. Such a feat was somewhat above the Ancients` engineering capabilities. At least you would need a high-pressure pumping system for undermining the walls.

Standard sapping would have been too dangerous due the low water levels (water would have rapidly filled the mines).

The Sassanians built some dykes on a near river, dammed the water and then unleashed the water with enough forces to smash one of the city`s reinforced gate. Happened during their Nisibis siege of 337/338.

So let us some talk about how could Julian have conquered Ctesiphon ?'


The problem with having a large collection of books and articles is finding information quickly, and I'm still searching for the bit about the channel idea at the moment.
The Romans were very able to construct very tricky engineering projects. They drove roads through mountain ranges, built aquaducts of huge size to carry water through miles of inhospitable terrain, could build canals and channels to link rivers etc. I am sure they would have figured out a way of doing it, Whether Julian's men would have had the time to construct a channel to the walls of Ctesiphon before the arrival of Sharpur II' 'huge army' would have been another matter.
The vast majority of author's, including Ammianus who hero worshipped Julian, said it was a mistake to both attempt to besiege Ctesiphon, and a major blunder to burn his fleet apart from 12 small boats.
There may have been the possibility of taking the city by storm, which in the long run would have been less risky than to try to lay siege to it.

[julianus heraclius]

I love watching two heavy weights debate. It's great.

[SeniorBatavianHorse]

Me too!

[PSEUDO ROMANUS]

Could anyone pass me a coke?

[Gen.jamesWolfe]

Could anyone pass me a coke?

*passes coke*

I've grabbed me buttered popcorn and coke .

consolation for not being able to finish the voicemod in time for 1.0

[belisarius12]

this is the response on the second question.
Julian ordered the supply boats to be burned as they could not travel upstream with any speed and the retreat began. The Persian's carried out a scorched earth policy, destroying anything of use to the Romans; their army followed launching sudden attacks.