Julian the Apostate

Greetings, fellow EBers!

Today I come to you with a question regarding how far emperor Flavius Claudius Iulianus, known today as Julian the Apostate, might have made it into Sassanid Persia if he had not perished prematurely. I know this is a bit out of EB's time frame but there are so many experts here that surely a few of you are interested in that period of Roman history.

Anyways, I am not an expert, but as I understand it after the death of the Christian emperor Constatantius the greek-born Julian became the Roman emperor and worked toward converting it back to paganism. He also orgainized a huge force including his powerful Gallic legions, and began an invasion of Sassannid persia in 363 AD. He met immense success in this invasion, capturing key Persian cities and was soon at the walls of Ctesiphon/Seleukia/Babylon itself. Before Ctesiphon he defeated the numerically superior army of Shapur II, losing less than a hundred men (exaggeration?).

However, because of stretched supply lines and the fact that reinforcements from Armenia had not come, he was forced to withdraw from the Persian capital. During this withdrawal he was shadowed by Shapur II and his army, who eventually attacked but were beaten again and routed. During this rout Julian followed close up to the enemy, not wearing his armour, and was killed when an enemy javelin pierced his liver. His entire campaign was a disaster, and the next emperor had to make some humiliating territorial concessions to appease the Persians.

So my question is this: if Julian had been wearing his armour, and he had not been killed, instead regrouping back in Roman territory with his Armenian reinforcements, would he have had any chance of conquering all or part of Persia? He had already twice demonstrated his ability to defeat superior Sassanid armies headed by the king, and if it were not for a mere logistical fluke he could have taken Ctesiphon itself. His territorial gains against the Persians in this short-lived campaign were comparable to those of Alexander. With the entire empire behind him, he definently had the means to combat the Sassanids, and win as he had before. If he resupplied and better planned his invasion, is it possible that Julian could have conquered all the way to the Indus?

I am ashamed to say however, that, I do not really know the Sassanid side of things (maybe The Persian Cataphract will take kindly upon me and put me out of my miserbale ignorance). Were they really in such a weak position, or would Shapur be able to call sufficient reinforcements to stop the Roman legions of the time? I noticed that during the Battle of Ctesiphon and later Shapur's failed ambush although the Sassanid forces were routed, they did not actually have terrible casualties and the army stayed relatively intact, to fight another day... or would Shapur II just become another Darius, hopelessly lost before an unstoppable conqueror?

If Julian had succeeded, would the Roman empire be better off? Would the added territory and manpower have made it a truly global empire, with the capability of fending off Hunnic and barbarian attackswith impunity? Or would it fall into chaos, corruption, or split like Alexander's did? There could just be a Western, Middle, and Eastern Roman empire by 476 AD. With no real threats anymore, could the transcontinental Roman empire now expand into Arabia, halting the chance of Islam ever developing in the future? Pay pack the German tribes by finally annexing all the way to the Urals? Christianity would be certainly stamped out if Julian had reigned longer, especially as the godlike Alexander reincarnate. Would people from London to Tehran be worshipping Iuppiter and Mithras in the middle ages? A pretty unlikely claim, I know, which is why I want to hear the opinions of you fine men (and women?), if at this oppurtune moment, if it weren't for a cruel twist of fate, the Roman empire could have expanded into Persian and beyond.

Please, think. Discuss. Enjoy.

Well, stamping out Christianity by this point was impossible, because it was entrenched and whenever it was attacked it dissapeared underground.

As to Julian, he was facing massive problems from with. The army was a dicipliniary joke and the provinces were still not recovered from a century of Civil War.

That's alot of speculation for any man. However, the main situation he faced the Battle of Ctesiphon was that the main Sassanid army was still intact, which meant it would be diffiult to make any more advances. It would have taken one hell of a war to conquer Persia, and I don't really think Rome could support such expansion, since they were still recovering from the 3rd century crisis. What's very likely is that he'd conquer and hold Mesopotamia, but it is unlikely he would have pressed on across the Zagros Mountains.

As for Christianity, he wasn't trying to fully stamp it out. He was trying to restore a religious balance inthe Empire that was badly needed, drive Christianity out of the governing class of the Empire, and restore Hellenism. He returned land the Church had seized to pagans and allowed them to practice their festivals. He also issued tolerence edicts, and took away much wealth the Church had seized. If he had lived, this trend would probably have continued, and Christianity would have lost some influence, at least until he died.

That is some very interesting ideas and thoughts. I have no idea or comments, but that is some impressive thoughts that you are coming up with.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CaesarAugustus

So my question is this: if Julian had been wearing his armour, and he had not been killed, instead regrouping back in Roman territory with his Armenian reinforcements, would he have had any chance of conquering all or part of Persia? He had already twice demonstrated his ability to defeat superior Sassanid armies headed by the king, and if it were not for a mere logistical fluke he could have taken Ctesiphon itself. His territorial gains against the Persians in this short-lived campaign were comparable to those of Alexander. With the entire empire behind him, he definently had the means to combat the Sassanids, and win as he had before. If he resupplied and better planned his invasion, is it possible that Julian could have conquered all the way to the Indus?

I am ashamed to say however, that, I do not really know the Sassanid side of things (maybe The Persian Cataphract will take kindly upon me and put me out of my miserbale ignorance). Were they really in such a weak position, or would Shapur be able to call sufficient reinforcements to stop the Roman legions of the time? I noticed that during the Battle of Ctesiphon and later Shapur's failed ambush although the Sassanid forces were routed, they did not actually have terrible casualties and the army stayed relatively intact, to fight another day... or would Shapur II just become another Darius, hopelessly lost before an unstoppable conqueror?

If Julian had succeeded, would the Roman empire be better off? Would the added territory and manpower have made it a truly global empire, with the capability of fending off Hunnic and barbarian attackswith impunity? Or would it fall into chaos, corruption, or split like Alexander's did? There could just be a Western, Middle, and Eastern Roman empire by 476 AD. With no real threats anymore, could the transcontinental Roman empire now expand into Arabia, halting the chance of Islam ever developing in the future? Pay pack the German tribes by finally annexing all the way to the Urals? Christianity would be certainly stamped out if Julian had reigned longer, especially as the godlike Alexander reincarnate. Would people from London to Tehran be worshipping Iuppiter and Mithras in the middle ages? A pretty unlikely claim, I know, which is why I want to hear the opinions of you fine men (and women?), if at this oppurtune moment, if it weren't for a cruel twist of fate, the Roman empire could have expanded into Persian and beyond.

Please, think. Discuss. Enjoy.

---

That is some impressive pondering on your part, I would love to see your ideas done up as an alt-history. As has been pointed out Julian did not want to stomp out Christanity just restore Hellenism and the old gods and ways. I think it would be more likely that had he lived and had any offspring (and that assumes that he did not keep his vow of cellibacy) that the old gods would have been restored but that Christanity would have still been around in some form. I can see it being kind of like what it's like now just and Hellenism and the old gods to the mix. It's kind of OT but have you ever read Gore Vidal's Julian? If you have not I highly recomend it.

I applaud your enthusiasm to consider historical issues like this. There are so many events from the ancient world that, with a different outcome, could have changed the course of history. Julian's reign is a great example of this. Please do not take offense to the opinion I offer here. I am in no way attempting to discredit your thoughts, I am simply offering the way I interpret the event.

It is important to remember that Julian was in sole power for only about 3 years. Because of the problem of communication over distances in the ancient world, it is possible that even his edicts had not reached the whole of the Roman Empire, and it is highly unlikely that many of them outside of this local influence were enforced to any degree.

At this point in the Roman Empire, many of the upper class has become Christian. Bishops of the church had begun to rise in power. If Julian would have lived longer and attempted to enforce his edicts and ideas for paganism, he would have met strong political opposition. Churches would not have simply given up certain spaces because the emperor said so. It would have been necessary for Julian to force this issue.

Personally I think Julian would have met his end when he began to force the issues with churches, if not only death, at least the end of his considerable power. Although the church discouraged military service and the bishops did not have control of armies, these men were highly involved with those holding power within the empire. From governors to commanders, the church would have found someone to oppose Julian with force. This would in turn bring about a "holy" civil war and the political and military chaos it would create would have seriously crippled the Roman Empire. It might have even accelerated the fall of the Empire, both East and West.

Throwing the religious aspect aside, I now turn to the prospect of a successful campaign by Julian against Sassanid. Military campaigns and the structure of the army was very different at this point. For quite some time the huge Roman armies of the Late Republic and Early Empire have not existed. In many places, frontiers have been established for quite some time and a system of forts and small forces were in place in these places. When the frontiers were threatened these forces needed to be able to move quickly as there was a great amount of distance to cover on the frontiers. Compared to earlier Roman campaigns, Julians activity in Gaul in the 350s were really a series of minor battles and engagements.

The Roman army had morphed into these groups of small forces because it met the needs of defense. Many times quick action would discourage raiders and even turn them around. Even when a field army was established, they typically were much smaller than Rome's armies of before. Smaller groups could move much fast and split up to cover a larger area. Julian's march into Persia, especially if he would successfully capture territory there, would have required a huge force. Roman commanders were not trained or used to these huge forces. He would have been at a severe disadvantage simply because of logistics. Feeding his army, giving orders throughout with a system used to small groups and movement would have been extremely difficult, especially in enemy territory. As someone mentioned earlier, it would require an extremely long and expense campaign.

Let's say Julian was able to overcome many of these odds and he conquored Persia and controlled new territory. Another reason for small mobile armies in the late empire was the problem of maintaining a central authority. Numerous Emperors were assassinated or opposed by other commanders of armies. Local commanders held strong connections with their troops and in the right situation were able to persuade them to march on Rome or against other Roman forces. While Julian would be away on campaign for a long time, there would be a significant threat of areas of the empire or other commanders of troops to rebel against him. If he conquored Persia, but lost an area say like Gaul or Spain or Africa, he would have to march against the rebels to maintain his power. Once again we come to more civil wars. If Julian would somehow be able to secure sole rule would the empire be strong enough to oppose the soon to arrive Goths, Franks or later the Huns into their territory?

Either way, if Julian would have remained alive, the empire would have had huge internal problems to deal with that would be enhanced either by a religious war or an ambitious commander or area opposing Julian. These things may have even acclerated the fall of the Empire, or at least significantly changed the events of the late 300s.

My 2 cents on the topic.

Thanks again for posting your ideas, it is wonderful to discuss things like this.

Btw...if you like to read historical fiction there is a novel about Julian by I believe Michael Curtis Ford. As all fiction it is not completely accurately historically, but it is a pleasant way to consider the events in Julian's life.

I've read at least several things suggesting he was killed by a Christian among his own forces which suggests that maybe he didn't have the entire empire behind him and that the rather important radicals were deeply opposed to him as most likely the empires court which would have been dominated by corrupt men who he threatened. So I don't know, I doubt he would have survived for very much longer without real support from Christian leaders

Quote:

---

As for Christianity, he wasn't trying to fully stamp it out. He was trying to restore a religious balance inthe Empire that was badly needed, drive Christianity out of the governing class of the Empire, and restore Hellenism. He returned land the Church had seized to pagans and allowed them to practice their festivals. He also issued tolerence edicts, and took away much wealth the Church had seized. If he had lived, this trend would probably have continued, and Christianity would have lost some influence, at least until he died.

---

Hmmm, these policies sound pretty anti-Christian to me, I think that the one reason Julian didn't declare outright war on and illegalize Christianity was to avoid the civil strife and powerful enemies that would have created. He would never have the support needed to outright crush Christainity, but migh gain some considerbale support if he conquered Rome's rich, troublesome Eastern neighbor... If Alexander told his people to worship the Flying Spaghetti Monster instead of Zeus, I think they would have listened. An older, revered and respected Julian in a better overall position might have been able to do the same (well, for paganism, not spaghetti monsters :P)

Quote:

---

At this point in the Roman Empire, many of the upper class has become Christian. Bishops of the church had begun to rise in power. If Julian would have lived longer and attempted to enforce his edicts and ideas for paganism, he would have met strong political opposition

---

True, most of the most powerful and influential people in the empire were Christian, opposite the emperor's beliefs. Constantine faced this same problem some 50 years earlier when he was in the process of converting the empire to Christianity, yet he managed to suceed and convert Rome's most infuential people with him, or at least prevent them from opposing him openly. It is not completely ridiculous to suggest that if Julian had reigned longer he would have been able to win people back to paganism and strip the church of much of its power, especially if he earned respect and prestige for victories against the Persians. He may have even gained much support from the Christians for campaigning against the Christian-persecuting Sassanids.

Quote:

---

Although the church discouraged military service and the bishops did not have control of armies, these men were highly involved with those holding power within the empire. From governors to commanders, the church would have found someone to oppose Julian with force. This would in turn bring about a "holy" civil war and the political and military chaos it would create would have seriously crippled the Roman Empire. It might have even accelerated the fall of the Empire, both East and West.

---

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I am under the impression that at this time the common people of the empire, and especially most of the Legions, were still worshipping pagan gods, especially Mithras. Thus Julian would have had the support of many of the common people, and, more importantly, the majority of the legions. If a certain Gaius Julius has taught us anything some 400 years earlier, the opposition of a few powerful men cannot withstand popularity among the masses and military might.

Quote:

---

Even when a field army was established, they typically were much smaller than Rome's armies of before. Smaller groups could move much fast and split up to cover a larger area. Julian's march into Persia, especially if he would successfully capture territory there, would have required a huge force. Roman commanders were not trained or used to these huge forces. He would have been at a severe disadvantage simply because of logistics. Feeding his army, giving orders throughout with a system used to small groups and movement would have been extremely difficult, especially in enemy territory. As someone mentioned earlier, it would require an extremely long and expense campaign.

---

Julian did have a huge force to march into Persia, probably some 80-100 000 counting Armenian allies, iirc. Indeed, the logistical issues would have been immense, and that is what forced Julian to eventually retreat, but he had demonstrated his ability to make it to Ctesiphon once before, and if he manged to capture/ secure the city, defeating King Shapur in the process, he would have basically subdued Mesopotamia, and been able to either continue on from there or set up new border froniters and convert Mesopotamia into provinces. This is a lot of ifs, but I think it is entirely possible and indeed plausible had Julian survived to retreat and regroup his forces.

Quote:

---

Btw...if you like to read historical fiction there is a novel about Julian by I believe Michael Curtis Ford. As all fiction it is not completely accurately historically, but it is a pleasant way to consider the events in Julian's life.

---

An excellent novel which inspired my interest in Julian when I read it last year, I would especially recommend his novel on the life of Mithridates, it will make you want to start a Pontos campaign immediately. I never readthe Gore Vidal one though :no: .

P.S. Welcome to the Org, Livius Andronicus!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CaesarAugustus

True, most of the most powerful and influential people in the empire were Christian, opposite the emperor's beliefs. Constantine faced this same problem some 50 years earlier when he was in the process of converting the empire to Christianity, yet he managed to suceed and convert Rome's most infuential people with him, or at least prevent them from opposing him openly.

---

You're forgetting an important factor, the difference between polytheism and monotheism (in most cases--modern Brahmanic religion can function much like monotheism, what with the concept of bhakti). Christianity provided a "meaning for life" where the old gods provided only an explanation for otherwise unexplainable events, such as why lightning occurs (Zeus is angry and throwing thunderbolts, oh dear). In many ways, Roman "decadence" was a necessary precondition to the rise of Christianity, because previously Romans had been encouraged to be fanatically patriotic and so didn't need something like Christianity. You'll note that Rome's traditional history is full of 'martyrs' much like those of the Christians. In Julian's day, I doubt the worship of Zeus and co could still have replaced Christianity. Mystery cults like Mithraism would be better candidates.

It would be weird if Mithraism was a major religion with 1 billion followers today . :dizzy2:

CaesarAugustus you make a wonderful point about paganism being prevelant in the armies. I completely forgot that detail!!! That would easily cause problems for a "Christian" commander, if any even existed because of the Church's shun on military service.

I wonder what the paganism in the army looked like? It had to have changed from the days of the late republic and early empire. I still think Julian would face opposition in the rise of ambitious generals from other parts of the empire, but I no longer think it would happen through the powerful members of the church.

Thanks for your insight in the reply.

Also, I apologize if I tend to be fuzzy on the details of Julian as my studies have focused on the Late republic, early empire up to this point. Do you recommend any reading to explore the late empire through?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by russia almighty

It would be weird if Mithraism was a major religion with 1 billion followers today . :dizzy2:

---

It would probably never be a major religion, as it excluded women from worship and practice afaik, at least in the form it existed in the Empire with.

Imagine

'Christian reconstructionism'

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tiberius Nero

It would probably never be a major religion, as it excluded women from worship and practice afaik, at least in the form it existed in the Empire with.

---

That's true of most major religions. Perhaps not to the extent of the cult of Mithras, but then they've all had more of a chance to evolve into a benign form.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mrtwisties

That's true of most major religions. Perhaps not to the extent of the cult of Mithras, but then they've all had more of a chance to evolve into a benign form.

---

There is a huge difference between saying to women, as in Abrahamic religions, that they cannot participate in the priesthood, and saying to them "move along, nothing to see here" as in Mithraism. In the first instance the religion still affects them, without them affecting its hierarchy, in the second it makes it clear it is none of their business. A religion excluding more than half a nation's population doesn't really have a chance of being anything more than a cult for a minority.

AFAIK it was the most popular religion in the army, and definately more than just a marginal cult. Women weren't initiated into the mysteries, but that didn't mean they weren't allowed to worship Mithra; they just weren't initiates, which pretty much comes down to not being allowed into the priesthood.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tiberius Nero

A religion excluding more than half a nation's population doesn't really have a chance of being anything more than a cult for a minority.

---

As a sports fan, I beg to differ. :laugh4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CirdanDharix

AFAIK it was the most popular religion in the army, and definately more than just a marginal cult. Women weren't initiated into the mysteries, but that didn't mean they weren't allowed to worship Mithra; they just weren't initiates, which pretty much comes down to not being allowed into the priesthood.

---

The Mithraic cult was all about the mysteries being performed in small circles of initiates, it isn't as if it had any other kind of activity you could attend. Women could not participate in any meaningful way in such a religion, if you are not allowed in the rituals, you don't really have anything to do with that religion or the god it serves.

"Faith" doesn't come into religions like these (i.e. "I am not allowed to participate in the mysteries, but I worship Mithra"), they are highly practical; the rituals are there because they serve a practical purpose (purification, enlightenment, revelation) and doing the rituals properly is what makes you a worshipper.

Also these rituals were quite expensive (sacrificing a bull isn't really cheap) so I can't say I think the cult of Mithras was that widespread in the army, amongst the officers certainly, but about the average grunt, I have my doubts.

AFAIK each Mithraist wasn't expected to sacrifice a bull each time they met. In the army the hierarchy inside the cult of Mithra would probably have (more or less) mirrored the actual hierarchy in the unit.

Also, the husband could very well tell his wife he conducted all the proper rituals for his entire family, and that's that. The woman is generally considered a dependant, not very much unlike a child; and in any religion of the time, unless a priestess (where applicable) she wouldn't have had a very active role, especially when it comes to offering sacrifices and stuff (if the husband says his prize bull is not being sacrificed, it's not being sacrificed).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CirdanDharix

Also, the husband could very well tell his wife he conducted all the proper rituals for his entire family, and that's that. The woman is generally considered a dependant, not very much unlike a child; and in any religion of the time, unless a priestess (where applicable) she wouldn't have had a very active role, especially when it comes to offering sacrifices and stuff (if the husband says his prize bull is not being sacrificed, it's not being sacrificed).

---

By participating in religion I mean being able to at least attend the rituals. In this sense, no, women did participate in religious rituals even if they were not allowed into the priesthood of particular deities. You can't have a priestess of Jupiter, but certainly women are allowed or even have to attend certain rituals pertaining to that deity. As such they are participants.

In the case of Mithraism they cannot attend rituals, and they obviously cannot know anything about that deity because that is classified information for initiates. The fact that their husband is a Mithraist is meaningless to them, perhaps they shouldn't even know.

A religion like that, unless majorly reformed, would be very problematic and useless as a state religion, if we assume it were ever to assume the role christianity assumed. Besides, the Greeks for a fact, perhaps out of nationalism or not empathizing with a divinity of Persian origin, never embraced Mithraism (and Greeks and Hellenized people were a good proportion of the empire's population, probably a majority of it after the division to East and Western Empire). So you have another problem for Mithraism right there in becoming an ecumenical religion.

I don't understand the fascination given to this character; Some of you already fantasize about Rome putting an end to the Sassanians in counter-factual terms without truly understanding exactly why the Romans not only failed, but failed in the most miserable possible manner. Julian may have had his tactical victories, but studying his invasion of Mesopotamia reveals many flaws in his strategem; His logistics and his underestimation of the Persian forces were to become his bane. Even after the sacking of Ctesiphon, two times, by Trajan and Septimius Severus, during what was considered a great moment of weakness for the Arsacid dynasty, the Parthians still managed, by military force to re-establish the Euphrates as the western frontier after emperor Macrinus' defeat at Nisibis, at the hands of King of Kings Artabanus IV. Afterwards, some of you conveniently, or by ignorance overlook the ignition of destruction wrought by Shapur I, who not only captured emperor Valerian at Edessa, but brought perhaps the greatest of all factors contributing to the fragmentation of the Roman empire. Do some of you even realize this? This is essential information; In order to know how the Palmyran kingdom took shape, one must appreciate the extent of the Sassanian threat to the East.

Shapur II The Great was certainly no push-over; Some of you count the battle of Ctesiphon as some sort of a defeat wrought upon the Sassanians. I consider it only a defeat by the tactical level. The Parthians and the Sassanians lost Ctesiphon many times; Five times in total during Romano-Byzantine times. Yet the Iranians persevered. Julian's campaign can almost be compared to the humongous failure of Marcus Antonius' invasion of Parthia; Even with a touted 100,000 men according to Roman sources, he failed to breach past Ganzacas, and even then, it was during a time when the Parthians faced their first period of decline after the fatal defeat of Prince of Princes Pacorus at Cyrrhestica. Now Shapur II The Great lead the Sassanians to their second Golden Age, and is often deemed one of the most efficient, but also the most harsh of the Sassanian dynasts, and you expected Julian to just swoop past Persia and putting an end to it? What is this madness? Has Persia suddenly turned into some booty of war that any conqueror could just come to annex by will? Does the sound of defeating the "uncouth eastern barbarians" sound appealing to you? Do some of you already forget and overlook the fact that during the last Byzantine-Persian war, the Byzantines were so weakened that the Sassanians reached as far as Carthage and Constantinople, only to even then fail to conquer the Romans, even in such desperate times? This is folly.

Standing at 800 years, the Partho-Sassanian legacy stood like a bedrock, a true rival of the Romans, while sandwiched between whatever the emerging super-power in Central Asia, India and the Graeco-Romans to the west. People would laugh at me if I made a thread about Shapur's supposed future invasion of Rome herself, even in spite of humiliations wrought upon no less than three Roman emperors, but apparently people can fantasize about "Persia Capta" because the wretched Alexander Mystique allows them such a privilege. Even Belisarius lost, and he lost during a time when the Persians were almost absorbed into the Hepthalite hegemony, but against who? An unknown officer called "Azarethes". I don't know what some of you are smoking, but you'll need to pass that shit over here and let me have a few puffs.

I love how damning your responses are sometimes! :laugh4:

Aye, and how absolutely pro-Persian. XD There's something to be said about being loyal to your group, not just mindlessly, but backing it up with solid facts. I'm learning a lot here because my knowledge of the Byzantines is very very sketchy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Persian Cataphract

I don't understand the fascination given to this character; Some of you already fantasize about Rome putting an end to the Sassanians in counter-factual terms without truly understanding exactly why the Romans not only failed, but failed in the most miserable possible manner. Julian may have had his tactical victories, but studying his invasion of Mesopotamia reveals many flaws in his strategem; His logistics and his underestimation of the Persian forces were to become his bane. Even after the sacking of Ctesiphon, two times, by Trajan and Septimius Severus, during what was considered a great moment of weakness for the Arsacid dynasty, the Parthians still managed, by military force to re-establish the Euphrates as the western frontier after emperor Macrinus' defeat at Nisibis, at the hands of King of Kings Artabanus IV. Afterwards, some of you conveniently, or by ignorance overlook the ignition of destruction wrought by Shapur I, who not only captured emperor Valerian at Edessa, but brought perhaps the greatest of all factors contributing to the fragmentation of the Roman empire. Do some of you even realize this? This is essential information; In order to know how the Palmyran kingdom took shape, one must appreciate the extent of the Sassanian threat to the East.

Shapur II The Great was certainly no push-over; Some of you count the battle of Ctesiphon as some sort of a defeat wrought upon the Sassanians. I consider it only a defeat by the tactical level. The Parthians and the Sassanians lost Ctesiphon many times; Five times in total during Romano-Byzantine times. Yet the Iranians persevered. Julian's campaign can almost be compared to the humongous failure of Marcus Antonius' invasion of Parthia; Even with a touted 100,000 men according to Roman sources, he failed to breach past Ganzacas, and even then, it was during a time when the Parthians faced their first period of decline after the fatal defeat of Prince of Princes Pacorus at Cyrrhestica. Now Shapur II The Great lead the Sassanians to their second Golden Age, and is often deemed one of the most efficient, but also the most harsh of the Sassanian dynasts, and you expected Julian to just swoop past Persia and putting an end to it? What is this madness? Has Persia suddenly turned into some booty of war that any conqueror could just come to annex by will? Does the sound of defeating the "uncouth eastern barbarians" sound appealing to you? Do some of you already forget and overlook the fact that during the last Byzantine-Persian war, the Byzantines were so weakened that the Sassanians reached as far as Carthage and Constantinople, only to even then fail to conquer the Romans, even in such desperate times? This is folly.

Standing at 800 years, the Partho-Sassanian legacy stood like a bedrock, a true rival of the Romans, while sandwiched between whatever the emerging super-power in Central Asia, India and the Graeco-Romans to the west. People would laugh at me if I made a thread about Shapur's supposed future invasion of Rome herself, even in spite of humiliations wrought upon no less than three Roman emperors, but apparently people can fantasize about "Persia Capta" because the wretched Alexander Mystique allows them such a privilege. Even Belisarius lost, and he lost during a time when the Persians were almost absorbed into the Hepthalite hegemony, but against who? An unknown officer called "Azarethes". I don't know what some of you are smoking, but you'll need to pass that shit over here and let me have a few puffs.

---

Ouch. :sweatdrop:

Well, I dont really think that the military successes of figures in the past such as Trajan, Septimus Severus or even Shapur I a century earlier have much relevance when discussing Julian, not to mention Persian successes against the Byzantines centuries later. The fact is the emperor defeated Shapur II's army twice right on the heart of mesopotamia, and likely could have done it again. While the entirety of the Sassanid Empire may not (okay, definently could not) be conquered and held by the Romans, I still believe it would be quite possible for Julian to conquer and hold at least up to the Tigris River. From here, Julian or future emperors could launch invasions into Iran itself (maybe not, depending on how the Empire was dealing with the barbarians pouring in from the North), or mesopotamia would be re-conquered by some Sassanid king some time in the future (I am shamefully ignorant of what the persian military strength would be like without their western provinces, but I understand that Shapur had a close alliance with the Chinese...).

Even just conquering Mesopotamia, Julian would still have likely gained the power and authority necessary to mould the empire's religious aspects to his liking, and, in bringing stability, passing the empire off to a single heir, could perhaps strengthen Rome against the barbarian invasions soon to follow. Regardless whether or not the uncouth eastern barbarians took back their capital and Mesopotamia, the Roman empire could remain a single, stable, political and military unit well into the fifth century. Or maybe its just this Persian shit I've been smoking...:dizzy2: ?

:whip:

Now, now, kids.

(I'm probably among the young ones here, but, sush)

For a debate to be pleasurable to follow one would wish for it to keep civil. This means, neither side pulling any kind of ad hominems or generally excessively aggressive language et cetera et cetera.

For this to be possible, both(/all) sides of the arguement should try and remain relatively neutral and not get overly heated. In this kind of 'what-if' scenario the main objective is to find the facts of relevance to the subject of speculation, id est, in this case the number of forces, the position of the leaders, unity and eco-socio-political situations within their realms and so forth.

Personal opinions, and specifically, those of favourable and affectionate nature should not be allowed to take over the objective, collaborative research and discussion.

Even if, or indeed because it is a speculation, one should not resort to opinionated claims and such, but rather remain objective. If ones takes it personally, the discussion will most likely degenerate into silly arguing instead of anything of constructive nature.

In this particular case, Julian the Apostate was an able military commander, with a strength-wise strong army (now that sounds smart). However, because of the aforementioned logistical problems he could not continue further into the Parthian realm, and sinking morale and diseases did not exactly help with this. Because of his untimely death, from the Roman POV, we will never know "what would/could have happened".

However, some speculation allowed, the Romans, with the 'what-if' quality logistical support lines, could have indeed caused the Parthians severe problems. However, Shapur II was no average ruler either, but rather an militarily active and also successful one (although his first war against the Romans did not succeed very well, in the second one he fared better and also subdued the simultaneously attacking tribes in the east).

Thus, as far as I can see, the Romans could have achieved some successes, but I cannot see Shapur II caving in before the Romans, but rather fighting to the last. However, my limited scholarly knowledge about the capability of the Parthian empire at the time, as well as the stability of Roman Empire and authority of Julian, prevents me from accurately speculating whether Julian could have successfully held onto his conquests, or whether the Parthians would have nonetheless, with or without his death, won them back anyway, or just merely defend the rest of realm east of Mesopotamia from Roman rule.

For this, I would need help from others (*Points at The Persian Cataphract* :p), but, preferrably, in an objective and factual manner, rather than offended and much-claiming-little-proving manner...

(And no, this wasn't *directly* at The Persian Cataphract, but your post was the one that got me writing. Hopefully I didn't offend you in turn, as that was -not- my intent.)

In all honesty, did Julian ever have any interest in touching Persia until he took control of the empire at I believe his Uncle's (don't remember exactly) death. All of his victories had been veteran or at least very enthusiastic legions versus foot troops in Gaul and Germany. While these troops were tactically brilliant in the situation and remarkably able they were fighting a battle on what was still essentially Roman territory.

Strasbourg was an amazing victory marching uphill with exhausted troops to win a victory against 3 times as many troops especially with his cavalry routing early. It is a real show on how the Roman meatgrinder worked for a few hours.

Julian won again with remarkably few loses at Ctesphion but the thing is he couldn't have stayed there. His troops were on their way out at that point anyways with him withdrawling after Procopious failed to show up with the Armenians. Even if he had managed to secure the city, this was nothing new nor does it really seem like that much of a danger too the Persians. The Romans are still in enemy territory and would have been faced with transporting supplies to Ctesphion. Sharpur could and most likely would have simply destroyed these supply trains while continuing to raze any ground the romans might cover.

The Romans already had good defensive geography as well as excellent fortresses at their borders before the war. They lost it because of it. Thus I have to say that either way you look at it, the Romans won battles but like Hannibal, it seems implausible that they could ever win the war or even gain much of an advantage from it.

Julian was an administrator and a tactician but the empire lacked the support structure for offensive campaigning. His legions were crucially needed at other borders and He should have known this considering how horrified he seems to have been when troops were initially requested by the previous emperor.

Reforms and strong borders would have helped far more which were I suppose coming if he had surived