Why did Rome never try to hang on to Parthian lands?

[Optimus Marcus Ulpius Traianus]

I know Parthia was one of Rome's biggest rivals and were more successful than most and defeated them twice eg Crassus and Marc Antony but they did capture and sack the captial 5 times, 3 times in the 2nd century alone (116 Trajan, 164 Avidus Cassius, 197 Septimus Severus) which is were the Parthian treasury resided (you think they would have moved it really) so with these gains why then did the Romans not try to hold on to the lands they had crushed most of the military. Now I know Trajan died halfway through his campaign and there was a Judian rebellion but surely there were enough troops to deal with the threat which was just a rabel and the Parthian's armies were in chaos due to dynastic trouble so why leave the land (also Trajan had buchered the peoples of the city so they were well pacified after one rebellion. I know little of the campaigns apart from the fact they trashed the Parthian armies then sacked the capital and sort peace. Why persue a policy of pacification once in a while insted of conquering when they could of taken considerable amounts of land from then perhaps even destrying the whole empire (i mean Trajan managed install his own pupet king on the throne and basically had it his mercy until he got heat stroke the dozy )

[Watchman]

Because it was not strategically viable. Parthian horse could range on the Mesopotamian plain virtually at will making communications a nightmare, and the Romans had enough trouble holding even their Syrian fortresses (which the Parthians every now and then overran anyway).

[War&Politics]

Despite the immense size and power of the Roman Empire, the Roman Empire had much less resources at its disposal than you might think. Wars and occupying war flung territories is a costly exercise. The empire's biggest cost is paying all the legions it needed to protect the borders of its territories. New territories require new legions and new roads to transport them for which the money might not be available, or troops need to be withdrawn from other regions, creating gaps in the empire's defence. When Trajan died, Hadrian had more pressing concerns (such as securing his power base) than secure at great cost Trajan's new conquests. Evidently Hadrian thought that consolidation was the way to go and later spent much of his career consolidating the empire's borders. During the second century Rome enjoyed a degree of peace and stability, and probably did not see the need to deviate from Hadrian's plan. By the third century Rome was experiencing constant chaos, and while war with Parthia often occured, Rome was in no position really to go conquering the east when emperors often had trouble staying alive for more than a few years at a time.

[Wagnijo]

Mostly because they were kicked out.

[Optimus Marcus Ulpius Traianus]

so it was the fact that there simiply was no point for them and that it would have weakened their position insted of strengthing it? by over stretching forces? (i'm guessing pinching the Parthian treasury was proberly more finacially viable than a war

[War&Politics]

so it was the fact that there simiply was no point for them and that it would have weakened their position insted of strengthing it? by over stretching forces? (i'm guessing pinching the Parthian treasury was proberly more finacially viable than a war

And politically, Emperors did not have the time to go off on long pointless wars. War during much of the Empire was a useful tool: earn a few good victories, add a nice title like "Parthicus Maximus" to your name, which gives you a good reputation and then go back to the business of running an empire. Spend too much time in the east, or fail to win victories, and a rebellion is likely to pop up somewhere, or your own troops might even turn against you (this is more relevant for the 3d century than the 2nd though).

[Optimus Marcus Ulpius Traianus]

And politically, Emperors did not have the time to go off on long pointless wars. War duringmuch of the Empire was a useful tool: earn a few good victories, add a nice title like "Parthicus Maximus" to your name, which gives you a good reputation and then go back to the business of running an empire. Spend too much time in the east, or fail to win victories, and a rebellion is likely to pop up somewhere, or your own troops might even turn against you (this is more relevant for the 3d century than the 2nd though).

i swear the largest problem of the roman empire was the fact they couldnt stop fighting each other well i suppose near ultimate power is too temping an offer to pass up.

[Wagnijo]

so it was the fact that there simiply was no point for them and that it would have weakened their position insted of strengthing it? by over stretching forces? (i'm guessing pinching the Parthian treasury was proberly more finacially viable than a war

Viable really isn't a good word considering the number of roman generals and emperors snuffing it on the eastern frontier.

[Optimus Marcus Ulpius Traianus]

Viable really isn't a good word considering the number of roman generals and emperors snuffing it on the eastern frontier.

only really in the later period of the empire eg 275ish AD was when the first emporer died and the war was more equal all though there were two more sacks of Cesitphon but yes you are right later on the romans did not do as well but it wasnt technically Parthian as it was the Sassissnid dynasty but similar people i think the reforms and out phasing of the legionaries in 210-30 made the army less potent if more moblie/effective defensive troops.

[conon394]

Political structure.

Rome could have and did crush Parthia with regularity. The problem was rather the weakness of the Imperial system. Conquest of the east was rather evocative of Alexander - that kind of glory was risky to hand over to a superordinate who just may turn that fame into converting Rome's army into his army and march on Rome. Thus it really required an emperor with the time and resources and lack of any distraction and a good decade or two to really work. Trajan went and died so even though he did the work his heir could not really hang around to finish the job - he needed to consolidate power back at Rome and could not really safely leave the required legions in the hands of another without risk especially new in his office (perhaps Octavian could have with Agrippa but Hadrian did not have that kind of trusted friend nor established rule)

[Optimus Marcus Ulpius Traianus]

thanks guys for imput/dicussion, new to the site and have to say i love the intelligent historical disscusion

[jackwei]

Maybe the only man who capable of probably making a successful conquest of Parthia would of been Julius Caesar even though this was before the time of the Imperial period. Probably before Trajan he was the only hope Rome had of taking Parthia completely since i am Caesar would be more prepared and better planned then the others by the 44BC time. But sadly he got assassinated before trying to realised his dream .

I've always wondered if Trajan focused on burning the city of Hatra to the ground and and capture the other major cities, while his army could try and drive the Parthians into the desert that would make them die of starvation and no water. Keep the Parthian Armies away from the Tigris and the main rivers so the army dies out due attrition maybe??

[frontier-auxilia]

They don't meant to keep it.

[hellheaven1987]

Maybe the only man who capable of probably making a successful conquest of Parthia would of been Julius Caesar even though this was before the time of the Imperial period. Probably before Trajan he was the only hope Rome had of taking Parthia completely since i am Caesar would be more prepared and better planned then the others by the 44BC time. But sadly he got assassinated before trying to realised his dream .

Na, that depends.

Parthia was using strategy like Vietminh used against French in Indochina; unless Caesar had enough men to guard every road there was no way to stop convoy raiding.

I've always wondered if Trajan focused on burning the city of Hatra to the ground and and capture the other major cities, while his army could try and drive the Parthians into the desert that would make them die of starvation and no water. Keep the Parthian Armies away from the Tigris and the main rivers so the army dies out due attrition maybe??

If.

The thing was Trajan had no force to even guard his supply line, less to say guard every point. Besides, his campaign against Parthia left many frontier holes in other theatre, which soon proved troublesome, if not serious at the end.

[manofarms89]

thanks guys for imput/dicussion, new to the site and have to say i love the intelligent historical disscusion

Welcome!

[D.B. Cooper]

The Romans were always too tied up in internal affairs to bother trying to defeat the Parthians, and after Carrhae eastern expansion left a bad taste in their mouths.

[Octavius Vatco]

The Romans would need to create a superior light and heavy cavalry army to hold the place.

[Xerrop]

...but they did capture and sack the captial 5 times, 3 times in the 2nd century alone (116 Trajan, 164 Avidus Cassius, 197 Septimus Severus) which is were the Parthian treasury resided (you think they would have moved it really) so with these gains why then did the Romans not try to hold on to the lands they had crushed most of the military.

You should also consider that the romans conquered only the mesopotamian lands. They never conquered the parthian heartland - the iranian highlands. The power of their empire lay in the persian, median and parthian lands in the east. There originated their nobles and from there they recruited their superior cavalry. With sacking Ctesiphone alone the empire was not crushed.

[Watchman]

...although it was probably a major dent for the royal coffers and no good for the Arsacid dynasty's domestic prestige. Which might well have played a part in the occasional spate of internal trouble the Parthians had, culminating with the Sassanid revolt, but that one obviously didn't do any good for the Romans...

[conon394]

You should also consider that the romans conquered only the mesopotamian lands. They never conquered the parthian heartland - the iranian highlands. The power of their empire lay in the persian, median and parthian lands in the east. There originated their nobles and from there they recruited their superior cavalry. With sacking Ctesiphone alone the empire was not crushed.

Although conversely you should allow Rome likely only aimed to conquer what is saw as valuable - trade ports and cities with a Hellenic population. The Persian heartland is awfully far from the center of Roman concerns and not necessarily likely to be easily taxable nor happy under Roman rule.