On eastern shores – A Roman Timeline

[Avrorrange]

Military service would keep professionalism in the Army while also keeping the numbers up then. Since it's not democratic then it can simply be put into Law that serving for a number of years is mandatory.

I once had a discussion with someone regarded the efficiency of the East Roman Army.They managed to convince me that professionalism in the pre-modern era does not mean a standing army.It's hard to argue that a knight in the medieval era was not a professional at war despite not being part of the regular army.The fighting efficiency of an army is also highly dependent upon the state's ability to pay them(which could be done in form of land and supplements).As it is,it's extremely difficult to support such a regular army by Rome.IIRC,the super-majority of the empire's budget goes into financing the army.Even if the empire pays the troops well,it does not necessarily mean they have the motivation to fight well.As of now,Rome's army is geared mostly towards fighting an offensive war,soldiers lack the motivation to fight unless they are going on the offensive(this is a major problem IOTL).With the empire much larger than OTL,it's doubtful whether the empire can still go on an offensive.If you give the soldiers land,they will have the motivation to fight to defend it.One also has to realize that the fighting efficiency of a regular army isn't always that much better than a 'feudal' army.The Komnenian Army was arguably one of the largest,most professional standing army in Europe and the Near East during the Middle Ages,but their actual record against 'feudal' armies of the Latins was mixed at best.

Guess I'm just not sold on part time professionals. It'll easily degrade into feudal structure.

Given that army command is segregated from civilian governance,feudalism isn't going to happen.Besides,you most likely wouldn't give enough land to the troops for them to have the ability to accumulate wealth and become some kind of privileged class.Land grants does not necessarily mean feudalism.Various Chinese dynasties(like the Tang Dynasty and the Ming Dynasty),the Ottomans with their Timariots and even the Roman Empire itself through the themata have used land grants but they didn't lead to feudalism.For the Tang Dynasty,the irony was that it's transition to a fully professional army was what led to feudalism and fragmentation.Also,given the Emperor directly controls most of the regular army units of the empire,any attempt to rebel or defy imperial authority would be quickly crushed.

 

[Agricola]

Once the most important places were occupied by Persians troops, Shapur sent 25,000 men to conquer and occupy first Thospia, then the rest of Armenia to secure the army's flank.

Great campaign. Well, it is Shapur!

But was'nt there a roman army in Armenia? IIRC it was big enough to deal with 25.000 men? What happened to them? Beaten? On their way to the emperors army, .... ?

 

[Avrorrange]

Great campaign. Well, it is Shapur!

But was'nt there a roman army in Armenia? IIRC it was big enough to deal with 25.000 men? What happened to them? Beaten? On their way to the emperors army, .... ?

Doesn't say the Roman Army of Armenia is beaten.The Persians also seemed stuck at the borders of Armenia,so I'd presume they are meeting strong resistance by the Army of Armenia.If the Romans don't do anything stupid,they should be able to hold the Persians off due to the amount of mountain passes in the region.

 

[Agricola]

If you give the soldiers land,they will have the motivation to fight to defend it.

I fully agree. The romans already knew that. Every medal has two sides. And the romans faced the bad one during the 3rd century crisis.

The romans recruited more and more locally. Almost all legions and auxilia were replenished by recruits of the provinces onsite. Initially soldiers were not allowed to buy land onsite. But this did not help. The parents, other relatives and friends lived in the province. This was reason enough for the soldiers to defend their homeland. Their homeland was not Rome or the empire. The homeland was Moesia, Pannonia, Germania or Egypt.

The bad news are: if you ask soldiers at the Danube to march to Syria in order to support the emperors campaign and lessen their homeland's defense, they refuse to follow this order. Usually they enforce their commander to usurp and acclaim him emperor. This was a new but also the most common type of usurpation upcoming in the 3rd century.

And guess what? Diocletian and Constantine saw this issue and splitted the army into limitanei, which were usually allowed to stay and defend their homeland and the better paid comitatenses, who knew from day 1, that they have to follow their commander everywhere anytime. Consequently it was much harder to find recruits for the comitatenses, than for the limitanei.

However, I am convinced that this split is correct. I could even imagine to enlarge the limitanei by part-time soldiers and/or conscripts. Remember, their main job is to defend the borders against smaller raids and banditry. Against a huge army, they had the order to withdraw, defend the walled cities, harrass the attackers, and wait for the regional and/or central field army. Some limitanei were great soldiers. During Justinians reign in his 2nd war against the Sassanids, the limitanei defended Syria succesfully almost without any support.

BTW, you do not need a democracy to recruit conscripts for a few years. The romans refused to do so, because it is dangerous to train millions of people.

PS: However, imagine the chances of Alarich or anybody else to invade Italy, if Honorius is able to mobilize up to 5 million soldiers onsite.

 

[Avrorrange]

BTW, you do not need a democracy to recruit conscripts for a few years. The romans refused to do so, because it is dangerous to train millions of people.

Are the Romans still having trouble with rebellions in the provinces by natives?I'd imagine that most inhabitants of the empire are loyal and that the real restless regions would be Britannia and Hibernia.Judaea should be pretty neutered by now in the 3rd century.

 

[Agricola]

Are the Romans still having trouble with rebellions in the provinces by natives?I'd imagine that most inhabitants of the empire are loyal and that the real restless regions would be Britannia and Hibernia.Judaea should be pretty neutered by now in the 3rd century.

Yes even in the 4th century they still have trouble with natives, like the Isaurians. But even more with romans like the farmers in Gallia revolting (Bagauds). In a dictature like in this TL, the trouble should be even worse. Imagine all these people know, how to fight correctly.

So conscript armies, like the romans had until around 100 BC, had advantages but also disadvantages. However, I would take the risk. But just with a constitution which grants much more rights. At least on local city level.

 

[Avrorrange]

Yes even in the 4th century they still have trouble with natives, like the Isaurians. But even more with romans like the farmers in Gallia revolting (Bagauds). In a dictature like in this TL, the trouble should be even worse. Imagine all these people know, how to fight correctly.

But regarding peasant rebellions,the thing is that as long as you've got the money to maintain the Comitatus and to keep the provincial forces satisfied to prevent them from joining the rebellion ,you should able to crush the peasant rebellions.But regarding the Isaurians,from what I've looked at the legion garrisons in the third century,not a single legion was posted in Isauria.All of the legions in Anatolia were stationed in the frontier with Parthia/Persia.If themes/fubing system is established,wouldn't there be enough troops in troublesome places to crush revolts quickly?Another thing if themes/fubing system is established,only the soldiers with land grants will know how to fight,not everyone would know how to fight.Without the participation of the officers,which I see no reason for them to fight in a secessionist movement,a rebellion is probably doomed from the start.

At any rate,I think provincial revolts like you described is much preferable than a revolt by a regular army stationed at the frontier.Even if it's the provincial part-time armies that are revolting,they are probably much easier to handle by the Comitatus than a revolting seasoned regular army,not to mention,the provincial part-time armies will probably have less motivation to revolt for a sustained period of time.

 

[Alcsentre Calanice]

How many soldiers are left on the east to help against petsia?

30,000 men of the Central Army.

Those with citizenship from a region then can vote through their representative on the Senate.

1) The Romans don't know the concept of representative "democracy" until now.
2) The Romans don't want a democracy.
3) There is nobody in the Empire really wanting a democracy.

Rome has now become a legalist regime modelling itself on the Han Dynasty.Democracy is not an option.

Right. But I think legalism will soon collapse because of revolts and be replaced by something more "confucian".

But was'nt there a roman army in Armenia? IIRC it was big enough to deal with 25.000 men? What happened to them? Beaten? On their way to the emperors army, .... ?

There is one, and this army did its job.

With the empire much larger than OTL,it's doubtful whether the empire can still go on an offensive.

Not on their own, but they can use Barbarians to do the offensive for them

=====

Caput Vicesimus Sextus: Hubris
In the autumn of 1016 AUC [1], the Persians evaluated their strategic position as excellent. Though the Indian Company defended the south and supplied the cities that still hadn't been taken by Persian troops, the Roman legions had been routed, most of Mesopotamia was occupied by Persian troops and the Persian administration prepared the near annexation of what was to be new satrapies.
Shapur was delighted by the success that he thought to be due solely to his military genius. In these times, the Persians were used to compare him only to Cyrus the Great, and Sahpur declared to have succeeded where Hannibal failed. It was ordered to prepare his triumph in Babylon, the metropolis that wasn't even conquered and still held by Roman detachments.

But the Romans hadn't sent peace envoys until then, and so the Persians decided to go for a last campaign to finish off Roman resistance. Hence, Shapur had to decide if he should march to the south into Roman Egypt and disrupt Rome's grain supply, or follow the northern route through the Taurus Mountains and invade Asia Minor; this meant to cross the Cilician Gates and the Anatolian Mountains, a region ideal for guerillas and ambuscades.
Shapur's strategists advocated for the first option, since they knew that his could force the Romans to act quickly and imprudently. “Provoke the Caesar, force him to make mistakes”, was the advice of his Eran Spahbed (generalissimo). “If Ceasar's people starve, they will be great turmoil in the city and in the empire, and this chaos could help us to win the war. Occupy Egypt for one year, and the Romans will accept everything.”

But Shapur had already other dreams. He had forgotten over the Romans, a people “of shysters and tax collectors”, as he once said. He wanted to avenge Dareios and Xerxes and take revenge for Alexander the Great. His new dream was that the Persian king who vanquished the Romans was also the first Persian ruler to conquer Greece and the other rightful territories of the Persian Empire in the west [2].
In October 1016 AUC [3], the bulk of the Persian army, 40,000 men altogether, left Edessa and crossed the Euphrates at Zeugma. Some Persian generals were concerned about the Roman manpower reserves, but Shapur and the majority of his officers was convinced that most of the Roman legions were committed to the Rhine and the Danube. The Persian high command thought it impossible that Rome could field an army of more than 50,000 men against them (the strength of the Roman Central Army).

And, here again, the Persians were right – but the Romans were very well aware of that. Alexander, the weak emperor, was terrorized by the Persian advance and feared both a usurpation and a Gothic invasion. The real ruler, Alexander's sister Theoclia, blamed it all on the generals and wanted to have them all executed. In the Senate, some influential members even advocated to offer the eastern half of the empire to the Persians in exchange for peace.
The only Roman keeping calm in these days was Lucius. “Due to Donatus' idiocy, comparable only to Varus' defeat, we lost a battle. But the Persians already lost the war. Shapur proved to be an excellent bluffer; he surprised us and was able to humiliate us. We have to accept that and to acknowledge that he perfectly used the moment of surprise he created.
However, the surprise now vanished and the current situation is clearly in our favor. The Persian army counts 40,000 men, 40,000 men superior to us in weapons and tactics. We can field only our Central Army of 50,000 legionaries, since we need the other legions to stop the barbarians on the borders. And, to prevent any usurpation, 20,000 soldiers of the Central Army will stay in Italy, leaving 30,000 men for the fight against Shapur. That's why we have to influence the Persian numbers before we engage in a battle.”

And that's what happened. Lucius' new African legions, consisting of Numidian horsemen, had already been redeployed to Asia in 1015 [4] and promptly started to attack the Persian troops with hit-and-run-tactics – especially the passage of the Cilician Gates caused great casualties among the Persian troops. At the same time, Quintillus, General of Egypt, marched north and occupied Zeugma – attacks of Arabian tribes allied with Persia couldn't stop his advance.
With the conquest of Zeugma, the Persian army lost its main connection to the homeland and with it most its supplies and reinforcements. But the point of no return was already transgressed. Now, the Persian army would either successfully cross the Anatolian mountains and reach the sea or be destroyed. And such a victory was more and more implausible due to the constant Roman skirmishing.

Finally, the Persian army reached the Roman province of Asia with 20,000 men. Meanwhile, the Roman Central Army of 30,000 men led by Lucius had landed in Ephesos and moved north to stop the Persian march to the sea. In the surroundings of the little city of Dorylaion, the armies clashed. The Persians used their traditional heavy cavalry, the Clibanarii and Cataphracts, but their number was too reduced to win the battle.
Seeing that his army loosing, Shapur decided to take to his heels before it was to late and left the battlefield, where is army surrendered after five hours of fight. The Persian King of Kings escaped through the Anatolian and Armenian mountains, disguised as a Phoenician merchant and returned to Persia – here, he was told that the Roman army led by Quintillus had reoccupied Mesopotamia and was ready to attack Persia itself.

With no other chance than a draw, he engaged in peace talks with the Romans and accepted the Treaty of Gazaka. Rome and Persia concluded an eternal peace, guaranteed by royal Persian hostages taken to Rome. Persia had to pay a high tribute in gold, spices and elephants, tribute that was so high the Romans hoped that Shapur would lack the ability to raise a new army. The most painful provision of the treaty was that Persia would give up its claims on the former Achaemenid west: Thrace, Asia Minor, Syria, Egypt and Mesopotamia.
After four years of fighting, the First Persian War ended. But Shapur I never gave up the dream of great conquests in the west, and he never liked his royal relatives anyway.

[1] 263 CE
[2] As shown on this map
[3] 263 CE
[4] 262 CE

Operations of the First Persian War (261 - 265)​

 

[Avrorrange]

30,000 men of the Central Army.



1) The Romans don't know the concept of representative "democracy" until now.
2) The Romans don't want a democracy.
3) There is nobody in the Empire really wanting a democracy.



Right. But I think legalism will soon collapse because of revolts and be replaced by something more "confucian".



There is one, and this army did its job.



Not on their own, but they can use Barbarians to do the offensive for them

And with it,hopeful Christianity never becomes the state religion.I never liked Confucianism,but compared to Confucianism,I think Christianity would bring more trouble to the Roman Empire in comparison.

By the way,given how extensive Rome's exchange has been with China,what has China learned,and how has it impacted Chinese history?

 

[RogueTraderEnthusiast]

Oooooh, there is going to be a comeuppance in the East - Ride Men of Numidia, Bring the Wrath of the West!

Seriously, I'm guessing that after the Persian Campaign there will have to a brilliant Punitive Campaign.

 

[Avrorrange]

I've got a question,why didn't the Persians counter the Numidian cavalry with horse archers and archers?There should be plenty of those in the Persian army.Archers were basically the elite of Persian infantry.

 

[Alcsentre Calanice]

I've got a question,why didn't the Persians counter the Numidian cavalry with horse archers and archers?There should be plenty of those in the Persian army.Archers were basically the elite of Persian infantry.

They tried (and certainly succeeded in some fights), but the army was cut off from supplies and in the Anatolian winter, there isn't much to eat for horse archers and their horses.

Seriously, I'm guessing that after the Persian Campaign there will have to a brilliant Punitive Campaign.

Shapur will come back and try a second time, that's for sure. He will also be not dumb enough to march into Anatolia a second time.

But if the Romans defeat him a second time, a third time, what shall they do with Persia? Conquer it and add a gigantic territory to the empire?

 

[Agricola]

But if the Romans defeat him a second time, a third time, what shall they do with Persia? Conquer it and add a gigantic territory to the empire?

Divide et Impera.

 

[Avrorrange]

They tried (and certainly succeeded in some fights), but the army was cut off from supplies and in the Anatolian winter, there isn't much to eat for horse archers and their horses.



Shapur will come back and try a second time, that's for sure. He will also be not dumb enough to march into Anatolia a second time.

But if the Romans defeat him a second time, a third time, what shall they do with Persia? Conquer it and add a gigantic territory to the empire?

There are several things they can do.After such a tremendous defeat,Shapur's reputation amongst his vassals would be unraveling.There will likely be attempts by the Parthian Dynasty to make a comeback.Rome should finance these attempts and cause internal chaos,minor success would be for Shapur to be distracted for a long period of time due to civil war while the maxmium success would be to balkanise the region completely.Second option would be to conquer the place and set up a Protectorate-General over the East,where like the Chinese,you would be setting up a number of vassal states in the region.You let them run the place but you maintain military control over the region.

 

[gianni_rivera]

Why would someone be so stupid and think he can defeat The Empire with an army of 40,000??

That's beyond hubris..

 

[Avrorrange]

Why would someone be so stupid and think he can defeat The Empire with an army of 40,000??

That's beyond hubris..

He started with 75k.40k is just part of his army.What's wrong with Shapur's strategy was basically that the Roman Empire's simply too big and the Romans can fight a defensive in-depth war.He should have concentrated on mopping up Mesopotamia and consolidating it against a Roman offensive instead.

 

[RogueTraderEnthusiast]

But if the Romans defeat him a second time, a third time, what shall they do with Persia? Conquer it and add a gigantic territory to the empire?

I meant to include "against the Arabs" - whoops!

Although, there was always the previously mentioned Slavic and Germanic resettlement theories - client states are fun. Even ignoring resettlement, the Parthian system (if I recall correctly) was one ruler who was tolerated because of the freedoms each Parthian noble house had - the Romans could very easily mimic that and leave the Iranian Plateau practically independent, with Rome owning Mazandaran and Mesopotamia directly, until such a time as the Romans can feasibly control Persia, at which point they could look into changing that relationship. In fact, mimicking the Parthian System may lead to an interesting circumstance where Persia is settled by a mix of Roman, Slavic and Germanic families over time, as direct control is slowly implemented whenever the local states decide to step out of line.

 

[Nagisaki]

He started with 75k.40k is just part of his army.What's wrong with Shapur's strategy was basically that the Roman Empire's simply too big and the Romans can fight a defensive in-depth war.He should have concentrated on mopping up Mesopotamia and consolidating it against a Roman offensive instead.

Or invading Egypt and conquering the rest of the Levant before moving against Anatolia. Like how Khosrau II did.

 

[Avrorrange]

Or invading Egypt and conquering the rest of the Levant before moving against Anatolia. Like how Khosrau II did.

I don't think it's that viable either.He's attacking too many places with too little soldiers at once.If he moves into Syria and Egypt,chances are that his supply lines will still get cut off either by the army of Armenia or the army of Anatolia.The Roman Empire he is fighting is at the minimum three to four times stronger than what Khosrau II fought and has the opportunity to send much more troops.

 

[Nagisaki]

I don't think it's that viable either.He's attacking too many places with too little soldiers at once.If he moves into Syria and Egypt,chances are that his supply lines will still get cut off either by the army of Armenia or the army of Anatolia.The Roman Empire he is fighting is at the minimum three to four times stronger than what Khosrau II fought and has the opportunity to send much more troops.

Well, all the Romans need is one incompetent Emperor (shouldn't be long considering how many competent ones they have had for the past 200 years...) and the Sassanians one really good Emperor and the Romans are going to get f***ed up, far worse then they were after their Pyrrhic victory in 628.