Julius Caesar\'s Hypothetical Parthian Campaign?

[NotTitusPullo]

I am curious to know how, if the Ides of March hadn't happened, if Caesar avoided assassination, how would he have carried out the Parthian Campaign? Has anyone published anything on the topic? Maybe a student or class at a military school. Or a professor. It would be pure speculative. But an interesting read.

[Paullus Scipio]

Probably much the same as Mark Anthony actually did carry out a subsequent Parthian campaign.....and that did not end well!

[MD]

I know one article (in German) that summarizes the sparse evidence from various Roman sources for Caesar planed Parthian war.

http://www.jstor.org/pss/4435870

Also available freely here:
http://www.gnomon.ku-eichstaett.de/LAG/ ... krieg.html

[Jona Lendering]

Probably much the same as Mark Anthony actually did carry out a subsequent Parthian campaign.....and that did not end well!

I am not so sure. Our sources are extremely hostile towards Marc Antony. Nevertheless, they admit that he conquered Armenia (which regained its independence when Octavian attacked his fellow-triumvir). If we read the sources as we read all sources - recognizing bias and lowering exaggerated numbers of casualties - we recognize two campaigns that were pretty successful. There is, at least, room for doubt.

So I would say: Caesar would have added Armenia.

I know one article (in German)

My printer is now printing - thanks!

[Paullus Scipio]

Jona wrote:

So I would say: Caesar would have added Armenia.

Well these hypotheticals can be argued interminably :lol: :lol: , but both by military action and absorption as a 'client' state, Rome acquired Armenia several times, but never held it for terribly long. This suggests that any conquest by Julius Caesar would also have been fairly temporary.

[Jona Lendering]

Rome acquired Armenia several times, but never held it for terribly long. This suggests that any conquest by Julius Caesar would also have been fairly temporary.

True.

[M. Demetrius]

If only Crassus hadn't had a "...lean and hungry look..." we might know for sure. :wink:

[fiatjustitia]

I think mark Antony failed because: first, he was a mediocre general, and second, he lost his supply and seige train by foolishly guarding it with one inexperienced and understrength legion. Without his supplies and seige equipment he was doomed. Caesar wouldnt have made that mistake and would likely have regained the urban Greek part of the Parthian empire and isolated the nomadic part rendering it impotent. Subsequent campaigns might have subjugated the remnants like Trajan did with dacia.

[Demian]

I think mark Antony failed because: first, he was a mediocre general...

I agree. His victories are because of pure luck. No sane commander would try and cross the Adriatic from Brundisium to Dyrrhachium on rafts and trading boats. But he did cross it. Because of pure luck.
You have to account his ability to insipire his men, and that he was basically a cavalry commander. He did not understand foot soldiers as he did cavalry. That's the thing, in a battles where was able to use cavalry he won. In Philippi Agrippa commanded legions and Antony cavalry.

[D B Campbell]

Rome acquired Armenia several times, but never held it for terribly long. This suggests that any conquest by Julius Caesar would also have been fairly temporary.

In my humble opinion, you have misread the situation. Caesar was a conqueror. Augustus was far more shrewd. He engineered a situation where Rome effectively controlled Armenia for over a century until Trajan (Caesar to Hadrian's Augustus) blundered in and upset the delicate balance.