Odenathus saved the Roman Empire defeating the Sasanids under Shapur 1st. However let us say the Sassanids dedeated Odenathus and eventually took over the Roman Eastern provinces? What would have happened? Would they be able to hold onto their possessions or would the eventually Auerilian comes and push them back. Also let us say they held onto these rich lands what would the long term ramifications for this? I would say Rome would have collapsed early which has potential PODs. Another would be a stronger and richer Sassanid with no roman competitor to fight with in the Eternal War would be able to handle the rise of Islam. Maybe Islam never exist and Zoroastrianism dominates the middle east? Or maybe the Saasnids become Christians down the line?
WI:Sassanid Empire took the Roman Eastern provinces the 3rd Century Crisis?
- Thread starter Marcus Licinius Crassus
- Start date
How much are we talking about here? The Romans still had significant forces in Anatolia and the terrain there would create serious problems for Shapur, assuming he cared to conquer that far. Most likely he'll take Syria and maybe Egypt.
With that said, you now have a serious problem for Gallienus, who in addition to the soon to rise Postumus in Gaul and the dire situation along the Danube, has to also direct attention to Asia. His reign will probably be cut short, which has it's own ramifications.
With that said, you now have a serious problem for Gallienus, who in addition to the soon to rise Postumus in Gaul and the dire situation along the Danube, has to also direct attention to Asia. His reign will probably be cut short, which has it's own ramifications.
Shapur would likely take Egypt and Syria. And maybe later on he would move to Anatolia after a Romans collapse in the west. And you are right about Gallienus reign would be cut short. That would be mean no battle of Naissus or a Romans defeat there for his sucessor. Would the Gallienus Empire survive? I would assume if Postumus took the advice of his generals and go aid Aureolus's rebellion it would further put the Romans empire in severe trials.
Possibly total collapse while Shapur rules Egypt and Syria unopposed and Shapur's heir's would later moved onto Anatolia. Or Anatolia with Greece breaks away from Rome and form it's own sucessor kingdom which will fights it's wars with the Sassanids.
No total collapse. I don't see why these events would convince Postumus to move on Rome when Gallienus being in a comparably weak situation IOTL didn't. Gallienus probably falls earlier, but like IOTL, this doesn't necessarily mean complete instability. Whoever succeeds him (or if Gallienus plays his cards right and still remains in power, himself) will still focus most of their attention in the Balkans, and will be unable to launch any major offensive campaign in the east anyway. I'm not sure what the feelings of Egyptians to the empire was at the time-in the 7th century war at least they didn't put up much resistance, but this might not be the case in the third century. Either way, I think Shapur will have too much on his hands to be able to launch a successful invasion of Anatolia, at least before his death (assuming he dies around 270 as IOTL).
Edit: Well I mean you obviously could have a total collapse but this won't necessarily be the catalyst.
Last edited: