Caesars planned invasion of parthia.

[Martin N]

As the story goes, Caesar was planning for an invasion of the east against the Parthians to not only further glorify his own career but to avenge what had happened to his old buddy Crassus. It was a shame he was assassinated before he could carry out his campaign. What would have happened had the invasion actually took place? And what are some the scenarios in which the ancient world would have changed?

I personally think that its difficult to say whether Caeser would of succeeded against Parthia, Caeser I believe was capable of at the very least competing against the Parthians on the battlefield. He wasnt stupid and he will have learned from the fate of Crassus the strengths of the Parthian army and mistakes Crassus made. Caeser doesnt strike me as a man who would plan a campaign against an enemy he cant win against or have no indepth knowledge of, so he must have believed himself that he was capable and that the army was.

It would of been entirely different to the warfare he had encountered in Gaul and the Roman army clearly isnt suited to fighting offensively against a cavalry heavy army which used horse archers and heavy cavalry to break its foe.

I think realistically Caeser could of achieved moderate success probably extended and secured Roman conquests in the east and reached a settlement which would benefit the empire and would give enough food for the propagandists to make it out to be yet another glorious campaign.

[CiviC]

As far as I know Caesar was planning a war against Burebista the King of Dacians. Ironically both were assassinated about the same time.

[Romano-Dacis]

I personally think that its difficult to say whether Caeser would of succeeded against Parthia, Caeser I believe was capable of at the very least competing against the Parthians on the battlefield. He wasnt stupid and he will have learned from the fate of Crassus the strengths of the Parthian army and mistakes Crassus made. Caeser doesnt strike me as a man who would plan a campaign against an enemy he cant win against or have no indepth knowledge of, so he must have believed himself that he was capable and that the army was.

I don't think that's true. Caesar was very brash in his decisions, and he was surrounded many times by his enemies. Alesia is a classic example showing how Caesar's brashness got him surrounded by a much larger Celtic force.

I think realistically Caeser could of achieved moderate success probably extended and secured Roman conquests in the east and reached a settlement which would benefit the empire and would give enough food for the propagandists to make it out to be yet another glorious campaign.

I doubt Caesar had the political capital to start a risky war. If he would not have been assassinated before the start of his campaign, he would certainly have been assassinated shortly afterwards.

[Carpathian Wolf]

Didn't he plan to invade Parthia from north of the Black sea or was that Trajan?

[Romano-Dacis]

Didn't he plan to invade Parthia from north of the Black sea or was that Trajan?

Caesar's big plan was to invade Parthia, then go through Armenia, then over Scythia Maior, and finally hit Dacia from two sides.

I have trouble believing he would have made it to Armenia.

[Frederich Barbarossa]

Didn't he plan to invade Parthia from north of the Black sea or was that Trajan?

Trajan ironically conquered Dacia and invaded and destroyed Parthia or at least half of it. Trajan carried out Ceasars plans with success. He managed to take mesopotamia, and burn the Capital of Susa or was it Persepolis? Anyways he didn't continue his campaign do to his old age. I personally think he could have retaken Iran, and from a Roman Empire stretching from probably the Indus Kush to Hispania, twice the size of Alexander.

[Optimus Marcus Ulpius Traianus]

Trajan ironically conquered Dacia and invaded and destroyed Parthia or at least half of it. Trajan carried out Ceasars plans with success. He managed to take mesopotamia, and burn the Capital of Susa or was it Persepolis? Anyways he didn't continue his campaign do to his old age. I personally think he could have retaken Iran, and from a Roman Empire stretching from probably the Indus Kush to Hispania, twice the size of Alexander.

well he didnt live to see Parthia fall which happened almost 100 years later! he didnt destroy it he died part way through the campaign and was unable to conquer it. Then Hadrian wanting to not start his emperorship at war seeded all the land back to Parthia fearing instability if he continued so far from Rome. But it did do huge damage to the prestige of Parthia and there confidence the area was not too badly trashed. But Trajan Seemed to have started the decline of Parthia as in the next few wars (165, 195, 211) they were trashed with the empire falling apart after 211.

[Carpathian Wolf]

I have trouble believing he would have made it to March 16th

[Optimus Marcus Ulpius Traianus]

Worse Generals were successful against Parthia and considering he is one of the greatest tactical minds and generals ever I could imagine that his campaign would have most likely been successful there would have to be some unusual situtation to defeat him eg Plague.

[antaeus]

the parhtian and sassanid empires were the measuring stick for roman emperors..

imo, the success and failure of roman emperors can be attributed to their goals, rather than how good a general they were. most(but not all) of the time the romans had better forces and better generals than the parthians and sassanids, but the territory of persia was simply not favourable to defeating the kind of forces that the parthians and sassanids fielded. if you compare the forces of shapur to those of darius iii - the earlier persian forces had significant numbers of infantry so were able to be grappled by the greeks without as much hassle as the romans faced. of course the romans did change their forces over time and so did the sassanids... but this didn't change the fact that the sassanids used the home field advantage well - even when they were obviously inferior to the romans on the field... when the parthians and sassanids did have good generals and forces... they were impossible for the romans to defeat.

to use examples... trajan failed... because he looked to create a super roman empire - he wanted to absorb persia as alexander the great did. he couldn't get further than mesopotamia without his empire erupting behind him... on the other hand marcus aurelius and lucius succeeded because they simply wanted to secure the frontier and remove the parthian threat - they didn't make destruction of persia and annexation an option.

the romans simply did not have the logistical ability and security of governance to master a campaign of the size required to take persia, and maintain secure frontiers across the empire, and prevent usurpers from taking the throne. because the power of the emperor was invested in his person... the empire rarely survived the emperor being absent for the time required - the only time it did survive was when the emperor had a partner he could trust at home... or when the action was fought by a reliable subordinate.

of course caeser wasn't an emperor... he was in a worse place... while he was powerful... the mechanisms of empire had not replaced the power structure of the republic... caeser may have been victorious... he might have gone undefeated... but the moment he left roman soil.. those enemies - who had fought him in the past and would go on to fight his adoptive son - would have made their move - and caesar with his best legions would have had to either make a deal with the parthians to withdraw... or would have had to defeat the parthians, before returning to an established hostile regime at home.

of course, this is all 'what if' history... so none of us can be right and none wrong.. because we all know the roman republic did not allow caeser his war

[Londinium]

the parhtian and sassanid empires were the measuring stick for roman emperors..

imo, the success and failure of roman emperors can be attributed to their goals, rather than how good a general they were. most(but not all) of the time the romans had better forces and better generals than the parthians and sassanids, but the territory of persia was simply not favourable to defeating the kind of forces that the parthians and sassanids fielded. if you compare the forces of shapur to those of darius iii - the earlier persian forces had significant numbers of infantry so were able to be grappled by the greeks without as much hassle as the romans faced. of course the romans did change their forces over time and so did the sassanids... but this didn't change the fact that the sassanids used the home field advantage well - even when they were obviously inferior to the romans on the field... when the parthians and sassanids did have good generals and forces... they were impossible for the romans to defeat.

to use examples... trajan failed... because he looked to create a super roman empire - he wanted to absorb persia as alexander the great did. he couldn't get further than mesopotamia without his empire erupting behind him... on the other hand marcus aurelius and lucius succeeded because they simply wanted to secure the frontier and remove the parthian threat - they didn't make destruction of persia and annexation an option.

the romans simply did not have the logistical ability and security of governance to master a campaign of the size required to take persia, and maintain secure frontiers across the empire, and prevent usurpers from taking the throne. because the power of the emperor was invested in his person... the empire rarely survived the emperor being absent for the time required - the only time it did survive was when the emperor had a partner he could trust at home... or when the action was fought by a reliable subordinate.

of course caeser wasn't an emperor... he was in a worse place... while he was powerful... the mechanisms of empire had not replaced the power structure of the republic... caeser may have been victorious... he might have gone undefeated... but the moment he left roman soil.. those enemies - who had fought him in the past and would go on to fight his adoptive son - would have made their move - and caesar with his best legions would have had to either make a deal with the parthians to withdraw... or would have had to defeat the parthians, before returning to an established hostile regime at home.

of course, this is all 'what if' history... so none of us can be right and none wrong.. because we all know the roman republic did not allow caeser his war

If we're going by Roman historical examples then Trajan was a massive success, he battered the Parthians, advanced further into Asia than any Roman army had before or after by moving into Iran, he placed a puppet ruler on the Parthian throne. If he hadn't fallen ill and died after having to return to put down rebellions, he would have returned to the Iranian plateau and finished off the Parthians sooner or later. Whether he could have held down the Parthians is a whole other matter, personally I believe it wasn't possible, although the Seleucids managed to do it for a while ruling from Antioch. Also a prolonged period of occupation of Persia would have hastened the split of the Empire into East/West because of logistic reasons.

[hellheaven1987]

If we're going by Roman historical examples then Trajan was a massive success, he battered the Parthians, advanced further into Asia than any Roman army had before or after by moving into Iran, he placed a puppet ruler on the Parthian throne. If he hadn't fallen ill and died after having to return to put down rebellions, he would have returned to the Iranian plateau and finished off the Parthians sooner or later. Whether he could have held down the Parthians is a whole other matter, personally I believe it wasn't possible, although the Seleucids managed to do it for a while ruling from Antioch. Also a prolonged period of occupation of Persia would have hastened the split of the Empire into East/West because of logistic reasons.

Ya, and faced insurgency at the back of his force.

Such a success, I suppose.

[antaeus]

If he hadn't fallen ill and died after having to return to put down rebellions, .

that was the point i was making.. invading persia is such a vast undertaking and rome was already large and difficult to govern

caesar had many enemies... they ended his life... had they not done this.. rome would have erupted in rebellion the moment he left and he would have to make terms with the parthians and return - as trajan did...

whether or not those terms were favourable would depend on whether he was able to pin down a parthian army and defeat them in the field... this was the hard part - several very good soldier emperors failed to do this and had to make unfavourable terms.

given the number and strength of caesars enemies.. he wouldn't have had time to go chasing the parthians for years like he did the gauls... so chances are he would have had to accept unfavourable terms.. or perhaps might have been assassinated by soldiers or agents loyal to the republicans.

there's no real way of knowing though... but i believe that rome had enough people who disliked caesar that had they failed on the ides of march.. it would only have been a matter of time.

[Mythos]

Caesar would have squashed Parthia like a bug.

[Dodge]

Caesar would have squashed Parthia like a bug.

Explain.

[Frederich Barbarossa]

Not so He was just too elderly, but yeah Hadrian Unfortunately got to defensive in his term, why is that??? hardrians wall, and now the return of Parthian land? WTH?

[hellheaven1987]

Not so He was just too elderly, but yeah Hadrian Unfortunately got to defensive in his term, why is that??? hardrians wall, and now the return of Parthian land? WTH?

Insurgency behind the back. Case close.