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.