4 ms·

I don't see any viable way for Julius Caesar to succeed in Parthia. Compared to the Gauls, Parthia was far more politically cohesive, had better trained and equ

by djur 4y ago

I don't see any viable way for Julius Caesar to succeed in Parthia. Compared to the Gauls, Parthia was far more politically cohesive, had better trained and equipped soldiers, and presented more logistical difficulties (Antony benefited a lot from having Cleopatra's support and still failed). Fighting a long and grueling war like that so far away from Rome would have meant leaving his domestic political situation in the hands of his allies -- and he didn't really have anybody capable he could trust to do that.

jbandela1 4y ago
Parthia did have a weakness in that the Parthians were seen as interlopers by the Persians whom they ruled over. The Sassanians who followed them were far more unified as they were actually Persian and able to claim the heritage of the Achaemenids(the Persian Empire of Cyrus, Darius, etc). In addition, the Parthian capitals were fairly far West. Trajan was able able to successfully invade Parthia. My guess would be that Julius was a good enough general to successfully invade Parthia, like Trajan and extract some concessions. The big question is if he could have actually conquered Persia. This is one instance where the centralization of Persia may have been able to play into his hands. If you look at Alexander’s conquest after a few decisive victories in pitched battles, he was able to conquer Persia. Same with the later Muslim conquest of Persia, where decisive pitched battles delivered large chunks of Persian territories to the Muslims. So while definitely not easy, I don’t think it was impossible, and Julius was one of the greatest generals of Antiquity, so it certainly would have been interesting to see if he could have done it.
vondur 4y ago
The Roman general Ventidius defeated the Parthians and could have possibly invaded Parthian territory, but chose not to. Probably done to not outshine his boss Marc Antony. Caesar was still a good military leader at the time, but was 60 years old at this point. He also was planning to punish the Dacians on the way over. The Dacian's would be a persistent problem for the Roman's until their eventual conquest by the Emperor Trajan over 150 years later.

by djur 4y ago

jbandela1 4y ago

Parthia did have a weakness in that the Parthians were seen as interlopers by the Persians whom they ruled over. The Sassanians who followed them were far more unified as they were actually Persian and able to claim the heritage of the Achaemenids(the Persian Empire of Cyrus, Darius, etc). In addition, the Parthian capitals were fairly far West. Trajan was able able to successfully invade Parthia. My guess would be that Julius was a good enough general to successfully invade Parthia, like Trajan and extract some concessions. The big question is if he could have actually conquered Persia. This is one instance where the centralization of Persia may have been able to play into his hands. If you look at Alexander’s conquest after a few decisive victories in pitched battles, he was able to conquer Persia. Same with the later Muslim conquest of Persia, where decisive pitched battles delivered large chunks of Persian territories to the Muslims. So while definitely not easy, I don’t think it was impossible, and Julius was one of the greatest generals of Antiquity, so it certainly would have been interesting to see if he could have done it.

vondur 4y ago

The Roman general Ventidius defeated the Parthians and could have possibly invaded Parthian territory, but chose not to. Probably done to not outshine his boss Marc Antony. Caesar was still a good military leader at the time, but was 60 years old at this point. He also was planning to punish the Dacians on the way over. The Dacian's would be a persistent problem for the Roman's until their eventual conquest by the Emperor Trajan over 150 years later.