If Julius Caesar lived to invade Parthia?

[Mrbsct]

Julius Caesar planned when he became dictator to invade Parthia to avenge Crassus.

Would he suceed or it will be another Cahrae? Caesar unlike Crassus was smarter, more inspirational. How would his Legions fare with Cataphracts and horse archers. Unlike Crassus, he fielded quite a bit of cavalry. At Alesia he fielded 15,000 German cavalry. PLus he used Cretan archers effictively at the battle of Thapsus.

How far do you think Caesar will go?

[C Crastinus]

While it's generally fruitless to speculate on such "what if?" scenarios, since each "what if?" leads to a whole new series of "what ifs?" ad infinitum, I have to admit it's still fun to speculate.

I'd venture a guess that Caesar would have avoided engaging horse archers on an open plain, and given his famous skill at thinking on his feet and his uncanny ability to extricate himself from dangerous situations, I doubt he would have been as obstinate as Crassus in sticking to a plan that wasn't working.

I think it's safe to say that Caesar would have done better than Crassus, but I really couldn't say much more than that.

Edit: Another thing that just occurred to me. Caesar was planning on taking Octavian with him as his Master of Horse. I think Caesar would have been disgusted by Octavian's habitual sickness on the day of battle, and Octavian may have lost his dear great-uncle's favor. Again, just idle speculation, but Octavian may have been lucky that Caesar died when he did.

[Frank]

How far do you think Caesar will go?

Not beyond Ctesiphon. And then all the way back to Rome.

[C Crastinus]

How far do you think Caesar will go?

Not beyond Ctesiphon. And then all the way back to Rome.

I'm not sure where Plutarch got the notion that Caesar intended, after conquering Parthia, to go north around the Black Sea and then west through Scythia and Germania all the way to Gaul, conquering everything in his path, but that seems a bit much even for someone as ambitious as Caesar. Ctesiphon strikes me as a more reasonable limit.

[Nathan Ross]

Marcus Antonius supposedly used Caesar's own campaign plan when he invaded Parthia himself. This could be true - it was quite a good plan, establishing treaties with the kingdoms around the northern fringes of the Parthian empire, who could supply cavalry and a secure left flank, then moving eastwards through the foothills of the mountains and dropping down into Media Atropatene.

Antonius's campaign was a disaster, probably because he left it too late in the year (he was spending time with Cleopatra instead), lost his siege train and got bogged down besieging Phraaspa. Caesar might have done a better job of it. Ventidius proved a short while later that Romans could defeat Parthians in battle, and successive emperors proved that Roman armies could invade and defeat Parthia. There's no reason why Caesar could not have been victorious.

The problem would be the situation back in Rome. Clearly the opposition to his rule was not dead, and would have burst into life as soon as he was away overseas. He would have found himself having to fight his way back west from the Parthian frontier, with the Parthians attacking his rear, and possibly ended up fighting the battle of Philippi in reverse, so to speak...

Almost nobody got away with invading Parthia/Persia. Even the successful ones either died on the way back, or shortly afterwards...

[ANTONIVS MAGNVS]

Antony wasn't just spending time with Cleopatra. He kept going back to Italy to meet with Octavian who kept playing games with him. Off the top of my head I believe he was detained for about a year.

[Gaius Colletti]

Given as many emperors who were able to conquer or at least defeat the Parthains, most notably Trajan, a very experienced and capable general such as Caesar could have been very victorious. The problem is keeping the area in Roman control, which coming back to Trajan, was an issue.

When Caesar was fighting the Gauls, he was fighting a group of people whom until recently were disorganized and not united. While Parthia may have had its own internal struggles with their people at times, I think they would counter strike. The Romans captured their capital what? A total of 5 times? It probably wouldn't have made a difference in the long run

[Theodosius the Great]

The Romans captured their capital what? A total of 5 times? It probably wouldn't have made a difference in the long run

Agreed. Ctesiphon, I believe, was their winter capital. In the summer the royal court moved to Ecbatana.


~Theo

[Frank]

I'm not sure where Plutarch got the notion that Caesar intended, after conquering Parthia, to go north around the Black Sea and then west through Scythia and Germania all the way to Gaul, conquering everything in his path, but that seems a bit much even for someone as ambitious as Caesar.

Yeah, if there was ever a plan in human history, this was one. Conquering the Parthian Empire and afterwards the Sarmatians, Dacians and Germans coming from the East instead of the West sounds truly epic.

But honestly, Caesar was an old man, and his health was not the best. He never had the manpower to hold and secure all this territory and he underestimated the geopgraphy and the population of the north dramatically. Not taking the political situation in Rome into account.

The Romans captured their capital what? A total of 5 times? It probably wouldn't have made a difference in the long run

Even for roman authors, it was propably fully unclear, which province was conquered more often: Mesopotamia or Germania. :?

[john m roberts]

First off, it would have been very difficult for Caesar to have done worse than Crassus. I think Caesar was past his best days and was probably too sick to have completed the campaign. On the other hand, he probably planned to take along Cassius Longinus, one of the few survivors of Carrhae and an outstanding officer, who managed to extricate his men from the debacle. Instead, he stuck a dagger in Caesar. Another question: how much of the Parthian victory can be attributed to the general Surena? Would he have been in command against Caesar? We are quick to give credit to great Roman generals like Caesar and blame failures like Crassus, yet we tend to attribute this Parthian victory to the qualities of the Parthian people. The Parthians never had another victory like Carrhae.

[JeffF]

Caesar was collecting a force of 16 legions and 10000 cavalry (described as Gallic and Spanish) for his Parthian campaign (he did not field 15000 cavalry at Alesia, the number is never specified except for 400 German cavalry). A formidable force far superior to Crassus' 7 legions plus axuiliaries. According to Goldsworth's book Caesar, he was actively collecting all the information he could on Parthian tactics prior to the campaign. Caesar's experience at Ruspina and Thapsus against Numidian cavalry might be a good indicator of how the Parthian campaign may have fared. Ruspina was a hard fought battle which Labienus' Numidian cavalry, using tactics very similar to Parthian horse archers, nearly won. Caesar gained the victory but lost perhaps as much as 1/3 of his force (but note that the Pompeian forces far outnumbered his). This could indicate that his Parthian battles could be equally bloody OR that given his experience against those type of missile armed cavalry tactics that he might do better having learned his lesson in North Africa. I'm intrigued that Caesar did not come to the conclusion that Numidian cavalry were probably the best available counter to the Parthian horse archers. His experience fighting them should have made him conclude that they could be formidable adversaries to the Parthian horse archers (In Trajan's campaign a unit of Moorish cavalry - ethnically similar or identical to Numidians - gained a reputation of being his most effective horsemen against Parthian horse archers). Although it can be argued that the future successful Parthian campaigns by Roman commanders were against a declining Parthian kingdom and that in Caesar's time Parthia was at its zenith I don't doubt that Caesar would eventually conquer at the very least the western satrapies of the kingdom. Given his political and economic acumen he may also potentially find a way to integrate and keep them as new Roman provinces. It is clear from Rome's later experience that these lands could never be kept Roman merely by the force of the sword. Of course that is hindsight which Caesar would not have in his time. In all likelihood Caesar's potential conquest of Parthia would probably be more temporary than Alexander's conquest of the area and I doubt that there would be any Romanization of the lands comparable to the Hellenization they experienced after Alexander's conquests (due to the many Greek colonies he left in the wake of his advance). Even though Caesar would face the same challenges Octavian faced providing lands for the mass of discharged veterans of the 60 legions + mobilized by both sides it is doubtful that such potential colonies could have Romanized the area. Older Roman colonies in the eastern provinces (western Anatolia) had themselves been almost completely Hellenized and a similar fate would probably face any potential colonies Caesar might establish.

[Alexandr K]

On the other hand, he probably planned to take along Cassius Longinus, one of the few survivors of Carrhae and an outstanding officer, who managed to extricate his men from the debacle.

Hmmmm, Cassius simply used the fact that he and a few of his companions were on horseback, deserted his commander and fled to Syria... (after all for cavalry it was much easier to escape than for infantry) I don't see this as an exhibition of his qualities as an officer.

On the other hand, later he was able to defend Syria against Parthian invasion only with two legions assembled from survivors of the Carrhae disaster and even defeat the Parthian army. Although mostly he was fortified in Antioch and tried to avoid battle with the Parthians and later won by setting and ambush, I think this is much more noteworthy.

Anyway, although he probably wasn't a bad commander, I don't think he was that good either.

Another question: how much of the Parthian victory can be attributed to the general Surena? Would he have been in command against Caesar?

Surena was executed by Orodes probably quite shortly after the battle of Carrhae (Plut. Crassus 33).


By the way, those interested in Caesar's planned Parthian campaign and able to read German may find this article by J. Malitz interesting.

Greetings,
Alexandr

[Frank]

I think the consequences of a third big culture are widely underestimated in such discussions. The roman empire was already splitted in 2 big cultures, the greek and the roman one. With Syria they had a province which was a mix of greek and oriental culture. Later more oriental influence arose with North-Mesopotamia and Palmyra. And we know, what consequences this small oriental part of the empire had on the roman society and politics in the 3rd/4th century.

Now imagine, the romans would really had conquered the economic core of the East: Armenia, Mesopotamia, Media, Susiana, Persis. Thats the minimum you have to control directly (province), in order to be succesful, imho. The consequences of such a powerful 3rd culture in the empire would be unpredictable.

Some historians argue, that this was one of many reasons, why Hadrian, the greek-roman philosopher on the throne, refused to continue Trajans already mostly failed campaign. During the campaign and his time as governor of Syria he was faced with the oriental culture. And for a person like Hadrian, the idea of a 3rd big oriental culture might have been a nightmare.

[Sardaukar]

Well, later emperors like Trajan and Septimius Severus did show that it was doable, if not sustainable. Even Marcus Antonius might have been successful if campaign had been managed better.

[Frank]

Well, later emperors like Trajan and Septimius Severus did show that it was doable, if not sustainable. Even Marcus Antonius might have been successful if campaign had been managed better.

Trajans campaign was already a fail, when he died.
- Armenia was partially reconquered by the Parthians
- It is unclear, if Media Adiabene was still under roman control or the control of a roman client-king
- South Mesopotamia was never conquered. It was always under control of a parthian satrap who made peace with Trajan and became a roman client-king.
- Mid-Mesopotamia (Ctesiphon area) was ruled by a roman client-king, a member of the parthian royal family, when Trajan left Ctesiphon. Hadrian knew, that this guy could never hold his kingdom without massive help by roman legions.
- North Mesopotamia was a mixed bag. Hatra was never conquered, some other cities did revolt. Hadrians army was still fighting in this area, when Trajan died.

And in the back of the legions you had this jewish revolt. Not just in Judaea.

The problem is, that conquering just Mesopotamia down to the persian gulf and Armenia is not enough from a strategic point of view. The rest of the empire would still be powerful enough, in order to start a counterattack.