Roman Mesopotamia and Ottoman Iraq

[Skullship]

A simple question, why exactly was Mesopotamia such a difficult region for the Roman's to keep hold of that when it actually was annexed, control only lasted two years. The Romans would reastiblish the province again under Septimius Severus, but only to the Khabur river, and since then, not even Eastern Rome with a closer capital would move its Mesopotamian border any further east.

Meanwhile, the Ottoman Empire would have a presence in Iraq that lasted well over three centuries, despite being in the same geographical situation as Eastern Rome.

So what exactly am I mising here? Why were the Ottoman's succesful where Rome/Constantinople wasn't?

 

[Sardar]

Maybe because Persia was more powerful back then?

 

[Evil Crusader]

The main reason is that the region was very peripheral to Roman and even East Roman interests, far more important for the Parthians first and the Sasanids afterwards, while still decently relevant to Ottoman interests. Plus, the balance of power vis a vis the Safavids tended to favor the Ottomans more.
To get and keep Mesopotamia, Rome had to commit to a very long campaign where they pushed so deep to the Iranian plateau that they'd have to give up Mesopotamia, and then hope it would not be immediately counter-attacked. Meanwhile, Ottoman Mesopotamia could be defended with guns and cannons and thus, once acquired, so much more easily kept.

 

[Cryostorm]

The Ottomans and Persians went back and forth over Iraq for centuries too, it was only the crushing defeat of the Safavids in 1639 that a 150 year-ish peace occured, though border disputes still happened. After that the Safavids were never really able to get back to a position of strength to threaten Ottoman Iraq with Russia encroaching on both of them as well as Persia dealing with Central Asian and Afghan/Boluchi and Mughal pressures along with internal unrest. The succeeding dynasties were also weaker and never in a position to take it before the European powers started weighing on the scales.

 

[Lalli]

Mesopotamia wasn't so important for Romans, not even for Byzantines. And Byzantines had other worries and finally were too weak even holding Anatolia. And most of that time Persia was much stronger.

But when Ottomans gained the region them had actual intrest to keep that and Persia was much weaker.

 

[Skullship]

But when Ottomans gained the region them had actual intrest to keep that and Persia was much weaker.

And what interest was that, exactly?

 

[Evil Crusader]

And what interest was that, exactly?

In the context of the Ottoman-Portuguese conflict, acquisition of Iraq represented a potential second front in the struggle over lucrative Indian Ocean trade links, which also greatly bolstered the Ottomans' diplomatic standing in the area and their Caliphal prestige.
Only after 1580, with the conflict subsuming, does Iraq become again a frontier march, but one the central government still wants to keep and successfully does (if tenuously at times) up to WW1.

 

[wakobear]

By the time of the Ottomans, Iraq had devolved to a nomadic backwater.

It's heyday in the Abbasid times had long past. Starting it's decline in the Anarchy at Samarra in 860s. Then the failure of Muqtadir and his successors to maintain the irrigation system. Added with the climatic catastrophe from 920-1060 and the Seljuk invasions, Iraq was a husk, agricultural cultivation at one of its lowest points in 5 millennia, only Baghdad clinging on. The Mongols snuffed out Baghdad, though they did somewhat rebuild it after it's destruction. Until finally Timur dealt Iraq it's last death knell. After which it became almost entirely nomadic...
It was only under the British in the 20th century, that large scale Irrigation began to take place again. Restarting agriculture in southern Iraq after a 1000 year hiatus. But the millennia neglect left its toll, with large swathes of southern Iraq (Sawad - formerly the birthplace of civilization and one of the most fertile regions on earth) being uncultivatable salt crusted desert. With majority of modern Iraqi agriculture is focused in the northern rainfed regions of the country.



For the Ottomans the main point of it was as a bulwark against the Safavids. As well as the importance of Basra as a node for Indian Ocean expansion. But overall it was a backwater.

The lack of Iraqi prosperity made it an unenticing target for the Safavids, though there was a strong religious aspect. But the political instabilities of the Safavids (unlike Parthians and Sassanians) made them unable to carry out a campaign into Iraq even if they wanted to. Except in exceptional situations when they had strong rulers like Shah Abbas or Nader Shah.








Whereas in the time of the Romans southern Iraq was probably the richest region of western Eurasia rivalling Italy, since it seems to have produced 4x the wealth of Egypt (at least in time of Umayyads - prob more in Sassanian times with smaller marshes)

Beyond that, it was the Persian's only major bankroller. The Iranian plateau not being particularly conducive to agriculture having large nomadic populations and Transoxiana being only tenuously controlled and not nearly as prosperous as Mesopotamia.


It was the site of their capital, the source of their wealth and had been one of the densest and most advanced regions of the world since it invented civilization. So they fought tooth and nail to maintain control over Iraq. Even if Romans temporarily took Iraq, they couldn't hope to penetrate to enter Iranian plateau due to logistical difficulties and superior Persian cavalry. So the Persians, waiting just beyond the Zagros, could easily assault the precarious and overextended Roman position in Iraq and retake their heartland.

 

[Talus I of Dixie]

Meanwhile, the Ottoman Empire would have a presence in Iraq that lasted well over three centuries, despite being in the same geographical situation as Eastern Rome.

I might just contribute to the discussion by highlighting that Ottoman Iraq was the most backwater of backwaters, being sent to govern it was equivalent to exile and disgrace, there was even a 17th century saying that went something like "May you serve the Sultan all the way to Baghdad", it meant "May you disappear". The Ottomans didn't put much effort in governing it at all, specially comparing to the whole of the standardized roman administrative system.

A-second-later-edit: @wakobear said it much better than me.

 

[HyperMuscularDemon]

Because the Mongol conquests did not happen yet, and Mesopotamia was still very fertile and rich in Sassanian days. If the Romans conquered Mesopotamia, the Persians would lose one of the richest provinces that gave them their wealth, which made them fight like hell to keep Mesopotamia within Persian domination.