Caesar vs Parthia

[William the Bastard]

Had Caesar not been murdered on the Ides of March it is believed that his next conquest was Parthia and the east. It is said that Caesar wept at a statue of Alexander when, as governor of Hispania, he realized Alexander had conquered much of the known world at a similar age to himself at the time. My question is this would Caesar have won? I have my own ideas on this counter factual idea but I would like to know other peoples views.

[Plutarch]

The Parthians were dangerous since they fought a style that effectively countered the Roman Legions. Im not sure, though, since Caesar had a knack for getting himself out of the tightest traps.

[Freddie]

The Parthians were dangerous since they fought a style that effectively countered the Roman Legions. Im not sure, though, since Caesar had a knack for getting himself out of the tightest traps.

Yes the Parthians were dangerous but that didn't stop the Romans from sacking their capital time after time.

[William the Bastard]

Yes the Parthians were dangerous but that didn't stop the Romans from sacking their capital time after time.

I do agree on many campaigns afterwards eg.Trajan the Parthians were defeated but had Caesar gone east I think he would have wished to emulate Alexander with a total conquest.

[Edmonton]

Gauls were notoriously ill disciplined, they believed that personal bravery and honor has nothing to do with waiting for given command -so they charged personally or as unit without waiting for their main line to engage thus given tight shut Roman forces an opportunity to eliminate them easily alone, in time the total number of killed or routed achieved critical point and all army began to rout.That was main reason for victory in Gaulic War.Germans had few warriors who had gone berserker ,but in overall they tended to stay in ,maybe primitive, but formation(according to Caesar's writing) which why they could not be overall beaten ,as culture, by Rome. Third party - Rome in Civil War Caesar had warriors who fought for 10 years against ferosious Gauls ,while his opponents had ,mainly raw recruits- which why he was victorius since ,otherwise,both sides used same legion's tactics .About Parthians Crassus was not a total looser he just had not much to do against horse-archers and heavy cavalry.

[Markas]

Parthia had a mixed record against Rome but they were unlike any enemy Rome had faced before. Caesar was a good general with excellent troops but then again so was the Surenas with plenty of experiance against heavy infantry. In my opinion, Caesar would have had to recruit alot of mercenary troops, utilise the pro-Roman King of Armenia, and keep his Legions well-paid and generally happy. Everything Crassus didn't, basically.

[William the Bastard]

Caesar would have had to recruit alot of mercenary troops

This idea I like as at this time he would have had the largest treasury on the planet and could pay enough to buy off even Parthians themselves and call them allies. He needed cavalry that is certain.

[Imperator Sulla]

This idea I like as at this time he would have had the largest treasury on the planet and could pay enough to buy off even Parthians themselves and call them allies. He needed cavalry that is certain.

Not so, Rome was recovering of nearly a century of inner conflict.
They had had serious politic strife in the city of Rome itself because of the Grachi brothers and the after effects there ideas had on the population and power hungry demagogues, for example Saturninus. They lost about eleven legions to the Germans at arosio?.They had had a uprising of most of their Italian "alies", this resulted in all out war on the Italian peninsula(bad for business and money). Sulla had marched on Rome, Gaius marius had a field day in masacering his enemies in Rome while Sulla was in the east. Cinna had his little civil war. Asia minor had been completly overrun by Pontus earlier(serious drain on income). Rome missed the income from Iberia for years when Marius cousin Q. Sertorius "reigned" there for years. They had had Spartacus loose in Italy for a few years pilaging and plundering(also bad for business). Ceasar had just had his money consuming wars with Pompei. And this is just at the top of my head. All Business around the mediteranian was disrupted by the wars and pirates, this was al just setteling down with the victories of Ceasar, even Octavian was still experiencing the after effects of this termoil. So I don't think Rome had a very full treasury. I think this was one of the motivations for Ceasar to invade Parthia. Octavian solved it by annexing Egypt......

Sorry, started rambling again.

[William the Bastard]

Ah Egypt! Did Antony not use the wealth of Cleopatra to invade Parthia and was beaten. Antony was also not the sole man of the Empire at that time (Octavian) and had fought some more wars (eg.Phillipi) beforehand. So I agree that the treasury was being depleted for plenty of uses and the wealth of the East would most certainly increase it a lot but Caesar was in a better situation than Antony to milk the empire and Egypt for cash as he was dictator for life.

[Holger Danske]

Cæsar would have defeated the Parthians with little trouble, a few open piched battles and Persia would be in Romes hands. Crassus lost because he was a pis poor general that completely underestimated the strength of the Parthians.

[Jaquill]

Cæsar would have defeated the Parthians with little trouble, a few open piched battles and Persia would be in Romes hands. Crassus lost because he was a pis poor general that completely underestimated the strength of the Parthians.

Assuming that Caesar could force the Parthians into a pitched battle on his terms.

[Imperator Sulla]

Cæsar would have defeated the Parthians with little trouble, a few open piched battles and Persia would be in Romes hands. Crassus lost because he was a pis poor general that completely underestimated the strength of the Parthians.

I don't agree. Crassus wasn't a pis poor General, he actually had some experience generaling. He handled the Spartacus situation. Crassus, as far as I know, was a pretty well organised guy and didn't rush into enterprises(military or business) with out doing the math an properly preparing himself. He was well aware of the parthian tactics and no doubt had the appropriate counter tactics worked out(He had for example a relatively large cavalry attachement with him). What he underestimated was Parthian logistics. He assumed that the feared horse archers would eventually would run out of ammo and that he then could force them into a pitched battle. He didn't realise they had a supply line actually bringing in new arrows every day. When he realised this he tried to make an organised retreat, but when he lost his son who led a cavalry sorty I think he just lost it.

Ceasar was aware of Crassus miscalculations and would probably have adapted his tactics to this. He already enlarged the siege train attached to the legion in Gaul, no doubt he would have used longranged missiles to counter the horse archers, but that's just an assumption on my part. Ceasar would have succeded where Crassus and later Marcus Antonius failed because of his tactical and strategic prowess and because he could learn from others mistakes.

[Edmonton]

The Parthians ,as Russians, used ancient Scythian strategy-retreat into un-inhibited country where enemy soldiers can't have bordelos and food water sources,bother them with horse archers then when the enemy's morale went down attack them with all your might-in this case cataphractes.Somehow this strategy never failed...

[Ippius]

I remember someone telling me how the Parthians were so confident in their tactics that they used to paint targets on their backs so that when they retreated, the enemy had something to fire at.

[The New Ceasar 476 A.D]

ddue to romes wealth they would have bought whole parthian armies and use themselves against themsewlves

[Holger Danske]

It happened with Crassus, and since he was so easily defeated I would assume that the Parthians wouldn't be scared of giving Cæsar that luxury.

[Odovacar]

Since Caesar was not an idiot like Crassus, he would aproach Parthia from Armenia, with the help of the armenian king, with suitable cavalry. He could conquer the capital, but the parthians would withdraw, and reconquer it, once he sends his troops away, which he must.
The end would be the usual: roman achieve some success but cannot control Parthia.

[Plutarch]

I "believe"

Crassus did have the support of the Armenian King. However, the king obliged on the condition that Crassus go through the mountains, which Crassus ignored. The Armenians left shortly there after.

http://classics.mit.edu/Plutarch/crassus.html

[kambiz]

Ha ha bunch of rome's fanatics who can't see their beloved rome would have beed defeated. Parth was the only rome's enemy who made an end to the roman expansions ,Did not let them to go farther euphrates as the romans did not Ashkanians(Parthians) to do so.

Yes the Parthians were dangerous but that didn't stop the Romans from sacking their capital time after time.

Dear William the Bastard !You're right ,Romans took thier capital for small amount of time ,So what? Just take a look at the parthian map and you will find out that their capital "Ctesiphon" was so close to the border. Ashkanians didn't have a standing army as romans had. They gathered their forces when the need arise ,due to that ,they sometimes lost their first battles ,but losing the capital it wasn't important for them ,Their strategy was to bring the enemy deep inside their territory and then destroy it gradually. They could surrender all of their territories ,but they would never surrendered. Romans certainly couldn't ever defeat parthians entirely.

[John I Tzimisces]

Since Caesar was not an idiot like Crassus, he would aproach Parthia from Armenia, with the help of the armenian king, with suitable cavalry. He could conquer the capital, but the parthians would withdraw, and reconquer it, once he sends his troops away, which he must.
The end would be the usual: roman achieve some success but cannot control Parthia.

Yes, but Orodes had forced Artavasdes II to ally with him after Crassus's defeat (by means of invading armenia itself). Now of course we (by way of Artavasdes) switched sides when Antony was doing his thing, but we don't really know what on earth would have happened. Perhaps Caesar would have tried to prop up armenia as a satrapy of sorts, granting all of conquered parthia (as sensicle) to the son of the King of Kings...but honestly who knows. As has been said before the Arsacids would have just come back to reclaim their cities as they would in wars to come.