Author |
Share Topic Topic Search Topic Options
|
Constantine XI
Suspended
Suspended
Joined: 01-May-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5711
|
Quote Reply
Topic: What if Caesar wasent assassinated? Posted: 04-Sep-2005 at 22:14 |
Yes there are Iberians in Spain, but there was also a Kingdom on the Black Sea which was called Iberia. This Kingdom was located where modern day Gerogia is and was a tiny state which was fought over by Parthia-Persia and Rome-Byzantium. In this region there was also the rebellious Kingdom of the Albanians, a completely different people to the Albanians in the Balkans. It can get a little confusing sometimes.
|
|
Belisarius
Chieftain
Suspended
Joined: 09-Dec-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1296
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 05-Sep-2005 at 00:30 |
I do not think Ceasar would spend the resources seeking glory against
the Parthians. He was the leader of the Roman world, after all. I
suspect he would have tried to solidify his borders, perhaps annexing
Mauretania, or campaigning in Germania.
|
|
Rome
Samurai
Joined: 29-Jun-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 129
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 05-Sep-2005 at 01:30 |
The Parthians to me are cheap, slimmy warriors that dont no the meaning of hand to hand combat. There cavalry would have bean destroied like Pompeius at Pharsalus who in his cavalry formation had archers and slingers incorperated
Edited by Rome
|
|
Rome
Samurai
Joined: 29-Jun-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 129
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 05-Sep-2005 at 01:31 |
Belisarius why do you say that Caesar would not want to campain in Parthia after all he was going to.
Edited by Rome
|
|
Belisarius
Chieftain
Suspended
Joined: 09-Dec-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1296
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 05-Sep-2005 at 15:02 |
While Parthia was indeed a real menace, it was only one of his
suggested courses of actions. Ceasar was a smart man who would have
made sure that nothing can snap at his back while he is off elsewhere,
unlike Alexander who spent little time solidifying his rule. When he
had taken care of minor nuissances and discrouraged any chances of
rebellion, then perhaps he would have taken on Parthia.
|
|
Rome
Samurai
Joined: 29-Jun-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 129
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 05-Sep-2005 at 18:59 |
if Caesar had a campain against the Parthians I think he would of tried to go for complete conquest since he looked up to Alexander the great so much. I believe that Caesar would have taken as far as Mesopotamia.
Edited by Rome
|
|
Emperor Barbarossa
Caliph
Joined: 15-Jul-2005
Location: Pittsburgh, USA
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2888
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 05-Sep-2005 at 20:00 |
Originally posted by Rome
The Parthians to me are cheap, slimmy warriors
that dont no the meaning of hand to hand combat. There cavalry would
have bean destroied like Pompeius at Pharsalus who in his cavalry
formation had archers and slingers incorperated |
I am really sure that the lance armed heavily armored Cataphracts did
not know what melee combat was. Why fight hand-to-hand when you can
weaken the enemy with the bow?
|
|
|
Rome
Samurai
Joined: 29-Jun-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 129
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 05-Sep-2005 at 20:09 |
it doesnt matter there should have bean a true general on the field at the battle of Carrhae not a idiot that made his men march to the battle field in the desert for hours and then assemble his men to fight without leting them resting ( Crassus ).
Edited by Rome
|
|
Heraclius
Chieftain
Joined: 28-Jun-2005
Location: England
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1231
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 05-Sep-2005 at 22:08 |
The problem with that part of the world (the Parthian empire) is that you may well conquer a great deal of it, but holding it is a total nightmare.
Trajans campaigns 150 years after Caeser were a great success, but his successor Hadrian realised these conquests just couldnt be held, the troops needed to just occupy and hold these territories would be enormous.
I mentioned the great success of Caesers campaigns in Gaul he criss-crossed Gaul smashing tribe after tribe after tribe and claimed he had conquered Gaul for the empire. However the Gauls revolted and very nearly destroyed everything Caeser had achieved. The Parthian empire would have been the same and even if Caeser has destroyed the armies of the Parthians, there'd of been countless revolts against Roman rule and the empire might never of been able to take root there.
|
A tomb now suffices him for whom the world was not enough.
|
|
Rome
Samurai
Joined: 29-Jun-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 129
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 05-Sep-2005 at 23:37 |
Caesar would have problems with the Parthians but if there was rebelions Caesar would do what he did in his Gallic wars when the gauls rebelled, kill the rebellers and set order threw the military.
|
|
Constantine XI
Suspended
Suspended
Joined: 01-May-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5711
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 06-Sep-2005 at 00:05 |
Caesar would have conquered parts of Parthia and then tried to split this huge bloc into a number of factions. Keep in mind Caesar's campaigns in Gaul had two key motivations: they gave him the ladder he needed to become leader of the Roman world and they helped finance a man who was wildly extravagent. As both these needs had been met by the Gallic War Caesar would only have been inclined to launch a campaign for loot and to destablise the Parthian Empire.
As for Parthians being poor soldiers, I would say shooting down your enemies from a distance with arrows is smarter than engaging them hand to hand. It isn't cowardice, just intelligent soldiering.
|
|
Rome
Samurai
Joined: 29-Jun-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 129
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 06-Sep-2005 at 01:58 |
Parthians were smart warriors but did not fight with honor in my eyes, thats my point of view.
|
|
Rome
Samurai
Joined: 29-Jun-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 129
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 06-Sep-2005 at 02:13 |
Hey Belisarius why do you think Caesar would spend his time annexing Maurentania and campain in Germania.
|
|
Heraclius
Chieftain
Joined: 28-Jun-2005
Location: England
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1231
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 06-Sep-2005 at 08:33 |
Im assuming by saying the Parthians wernt honourable your referring to their way of waging war and fighting battles.
I know the Romans atleast in the early days considered an enemy that did not confront it head on as cowardly, but really only because a frontal engagement favoured the Romans, if the Romans didnt get their way there was rarely a plan B.
I suppose the Parthian viewpoint would of been, why should they meet the Romans in battle as the Romans wanted them to? why not use the tactics the Parthians are experts with? why put your army in jeopardy just for the sake of your enemy thinking you are honourable?
Surely a clever victory, however it is gained is better than an *honourable* defeat.
|
A tomb now suffices him for whom the world was not enough.
|
|
Belisarius
Chieftain
Suspended
Joined: 09-Dec-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1296
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 06-Sep-2005 at 16:29 |
Even in Ceasar's time the Germans were giving the Romans all sorts of
Hell. The assailment of Roman allies in Gaul was the reason Ceasar
conquered Gaul in the first place. The pacification of border tribes
would have ensured the safety of Roman territory in Gaul for the time
being.
Mauretania was already a client kingdom of Rome, but the Berbers had a
history of rebelliousness. The next logical step would have been to
annex the territory all together and garrison it with Roman troops.
Why these territories first and not Parthia? Well, they were a whole lot closer to Rome.
There is another scenario should Ceasar decide to expand Rome and that
is the annexation of Egypt. As a province, it would have been more
profitable to Rome than all of Parthia. It was wealthy and an
agricultural paradise. It all depended on whether Cleopatra's refined
pheromones could have stopped Ceasar if he decided on this course of
action.
|
|
Heraclius
Chieftain
Joined: 28-Jun-2005
Location: England
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1231
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 06-Sep-2005 at 17:33 |
Parthia was a persistant threat to Rome though, even if the gains of taking Egypt would exceed those if you conquered the Parthians, it'd surely be worth it to destroy a great rival.
|
A tomb now suffices him for whom the world was not enough.
|
|
Belisarius
Chieftain
Suspended
Joined: 09-Dec-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1296
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 06-Sep-2005 at 21:08 |
Well, I would rather take Egypt before the Parthians get to it first.
|
|
Constantine XI
Suspended
Suspended
Joined: 01-May-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5711
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 06-Sep-2005 at 22:22 |
Rome already controlled Parthia's invasion route to Egypt though, having either established client Kingdoms or directly annexed all the land in Syria and Judaea. As it was Rome was already milking Egypt for plenty of its worth, if I were Caesar I would prefer to tackle Parthia just to ensure Octavian has an easier time of it when he becomes Imperator.
As for Cleopatra's pheromones, well let's just say the only man who had the right idea was Octavian when he refused to get close enough to be seduced. She put her best assets to use for the national good, which is what I admire about the woman.
|
|
Belisarius
Chieftain
Suspended
Joined: 09-Dec-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1296
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 06-Sep-2005 at 22:52 |
What I had meant was the proximity of Egypt to Parthia. The Levant is
not exactly a big place and as client kingdoms, Roman presence would
not have been sufficient to fend off a full-scale invasion.
I doubt the Romans really would have pursued a full conquest of
Parthia. After all, what did their lands really have to offer.
Mesopotamia may have been attractive, but would it be worth to spend
resources garrisoning it, when the Nile is just as, if not more,
productive and more predictable?
|
|
Heraclius
Chieftain
Joined: 28-Jun-2005
Location: England
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1231
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 07-Sep-2005 at 08:00 |
Maybe not the total conquest or the Parthian empire, the cost of holding all of it would be enormous, but to weaken it so it were not longer a threat to the east would of been a sound investment. It would certainly of spared Rome some of the almost endless wars on its eastern frontier it had with Parthia.
Trajan achieved this to a large extent when he replaced the Parthian king with his own puppet king and formally declared Mesopotamia a Roman province. However again the problem of holding onto his conquests was always the problem and Hadrian withdrew Roman forces from Mesopotamia back in order to avoid overextension of the army.
The Parthians obviously recovered but they were just eventually replaced by as even greater menace the Sassanid's, the crippling of Parthia earlier by Caeser or whoever would have made life alot easier for Rome in the future. As it turned out there would be a constant Persian menace in the east for around 700 years until the Arabs replaced it.
|
A tomb now suffices him for whom the world was not enough.
|
|