Trajan conquests

[PROMETHEUS ts]

Altough very little is known about thebattles and campaigns of trajan when conquered parthia and beyond ... Since it represents the peack of the roman empire conquests I ould like a campaign set in that time with full legion imperials...

Agree or not?

[Grimbold]

Wrestling control of Armenia and Mesopotamia from Parthia = Conquering the Parthian Empire?

[PROMETHEUS ts]

Perhaps you have not well clear the history of those happenings...

Trajan's Parthian War
A new series of wars began in the 2nd century AD, during which the Romans consistently held the upper hand over Parthia. In 113 AD the Roman Emperor Trajan decided that the moment was ripe to resolve the "eastern question" once and for all time by the decisive defeat of Parthia and the annexation of Armenia; his conquests marked a deliberate change of Roman policy towards Parthia, and a shift of emphasis in the "grand strategy" of the empire.[17]
In 114 AD Trajan invaded Armenia, annexed it as a Roman province, and killed Parthamasiris who was placed on the Armenian throne by his relative, the king of Parthia, Osroes I.[18] In 115 AD the Roman emperor overran northern Mesopotamia and annexed to Rome as well; its conquest was deemed necessary, since otherwise the Armenian salient could be cut off by the Parthians from the south.[18] The Romans then captured the Parthian capital, Ctesiphon, before sailing downriver to the Persian Gulf. However, in that year revolts erupted in Palestine, Syria and northern Mesopotamia, while a major Jewish revolt broke out in Roman territory, severely stretching Roman military resources. Simultaneously, Parthian forces began attacking key Roman positions; at the same time the Roman garrisons at Seleucia, Nisibis and Edessa had been attacked and evicted by the local populaces. Trajan subdued the rebels in Mesopotamia, but having installed the Parthian prince Parthamaspates on the throne there as a client ruler he withdrew his armies, and proceeded to Syria, where he set up his headquarters at Antioch. In 117, before he could reorganize the effort to consolidate Roman control over the Parthian provinces, Trajan died.

[bobbin]

Perhaps you have not well clear the history of those happenings...

Armenia and Mesopotamia were only a small part of the Parthian Empire and that puppet ruler lasted less than a year on the throne. I wouldn't call that a conquest, more like an annexation of some provinces and an attempt to further inflame the civil war that was raging in the Parthian Empire at the time.

[PROMETHEUS ts]

Armenia and Mesopotamia were only a small part of the Parthian Empire and that puppet ruler lasted less than a year on the throne. I wouldn't call that a conquest, more like an annexation of some provinces and an attempt to further inflame the civil war that was raging in the Parthian Empire at the time.

Its not really like that , if parthians took the province of Italy and sacked the roman empire capital would you still cll it a small part ? First of all the parthian capitl was the most important and rich part , most of the country rest was sterile desert , and the east was too much primitive and after roman conquest was just open filds without proper government , a puppet cuhion state... A further expanion east was blocked couse of behind lines revolts in ore empire regions...

[Grimbold]

It doesn't change the fact that your wording is wrong. Establishing a client kingdom isn't the same as obliterating a region to the point of submission/annexation.

And as was said, as soon as Trajan left, the parthian prince was removed from the throne and Mesopotamia was Parthian once again.

The fact that you describe the lands to the east in such manner doesn't mean anything. As far as i know Trajan wanted to go further east, but he couldn't properly hold what he already had (plus he was old), so your description goes agaisn't the wishes of the former emperor.

[Xerrop]

Its not really like that , if parthians took the province of Italy and sacked the roman empire capital would you still cll it a small part ?

Well ... Yes - Alaric did something similar in 410 AD and also Rome got over it quickly.

First of all the parthian capitl was the most important and rich part , most of the country rest was sterile desert , and the east was too much primitive and after roman conquest was just open filds without proper government , a puppet cuhion state...

Parthia consisted not only of Ctesiphon and Mesopotamia. They had other large cities like Ecbatana in Media, Susa in Elam or Persepolis/Estakhr in the Persis province. From there the Sassanids originated, so it was also an important place in the Parthian Empire. Rivaling dynasties appear seldom in unimportant and poor places.

[bobbin]

Its not really like that , if parthians took the province of Italy and sacked the roman empire capital would you still cll it a small part ? First of all the parthian capitl was the most important and rich part , most of the country rest was sterile desert , and the east was too much primitive and after roman conquest was just open filds without proper government , a puppet cuhion state... A further expanion east was blocked couse of behind lines revolts in ore empire regions...

No, no, no, where on earth did you learn such nonsense? Are you honestly trying to call the entirety of the Iranian plateau a sterile desert inhabited by primitives?

Lets get things straight here.

Trajans conquests came during a civil war between the rightful heir to the throne Osroes I and the usurper Vologases III. Trajan captured the puppet state of Armenia and all of Mesopotamia (including the main Parthian capital), he also made some small inroads into Iran proper advancing as far as Susa. He then installed Osroes I son Parthamaspates as a puppet king over these territories.

The main thing to note though is that Osroes I was still king in the other areas of his part of the Parthian Empire (like Media which contained the Parthian summer capital Ekbatana), he may have suffered a great defeat but he wasn't conquered, and once the Romans withdrew he quickly regained his lost lands. And remember that during all this there was Vologases III who ruled the entire eastern half of the empire and who the Romans didn't even come into contact with, let alone conquer.

It was a massive blow to the Parthians but is was not a conquest, you compare it to if the Parthains took all of Italy, are you really saying that if that happened the entire empire would crumble? Even with the Emperor still at large and the rest of the empires resources and armies behind him?

[Adufka]

I think,that from time to time...as it was in Mediavel 2.pope called for crusades,in Rome 2...senate should call for conquests to conquer and gain new provinces that's enough

[jackwei]

I would say the year of four emperors 69AD on death of Nero as that some can say was a great roman civil war during the imperial period, also the great revolt in Judea and the Batavian revolt happened at the same time so it would make a great setting i would say. campaign could end 117AD or even 180AD.

[rory o'kane]

I'd like the campaign to go from 280BC to 180 AD, but that's just me.

[Adufka]

I'd like the campaign to go from 280BC to 180 AD, but that's just me.

yee that date I like too..we'll see

[MorganH.]

I'd like the campaign to go from 280BC to 180 AD, but that's just me.

Me too,although an expansion set into the principate era will serve its purpose just as good.

[Rhaegar1]

not really interrested in a campaign spanning the height of the empire, give my BI! And and Alexander (only this time a full campaign also spanning the greek vs persian wars of earlier)

[Andreius Pretorianus]

I d like to see the campaign of Trajan in Dacia

[tone]

Me too to the last two statements

[beerin]

One of the main reasons the Romans had to install a ruler and withdraw was to put down massive jewish revolts in Egypt and Palestine

[underworld965]

While I wouldn't call it conquering parthia, I would call it Rome delivering a rather crushing defeat to parthia.

[Nochyan]

I'd love to see some Trajan campaigns, especially in Dacia

[DAVIDE]

I'm done, Aways the same locations, the same things, the same factions, the same events, the same era.. I'd like to see a Total War game based, for example, at the time of the Egyptians of the Pharaohs, Assyrians, Minoans, Hebrews, Babylonians, Phoenicians, Ur, Sumerians blablabla. No more barbaric invasions or Alexander the Great please