How successful do you think Caesar would have been against the Parthians? (You can Install Raid for Free on Mobile and PC: clik.cc/qJLzi and get a special starter pack :boom: Available only for the next 30 days)
Ｉ don't know but i must say Invicta and K&G are two of the very best channels! I really love your work, since I never got much into Ancient history so your helping cover some gaps in my knowledge. Thank you for all you do!
@@JTL1776 there is a book series by R.W. peake called Caesar Ascended which deals with the exact same thing. It’s less objective in its approach but still a good read in my opinion
Whenever Caesar is in trouble in a timeline, just build walls - he always built walls, even had "wall-building races" with Pompei. Just build walls, he'll be fine.
All of you are idiots. None of this would've happened. We dont know anything about parthia that much. Because even Romans found them to be mysterious. Also rome focused more on infantry. But parthians focused ore on cavalry. Because persian terrain is different. We can see them in later roman wars.
Could've been the greatest conquest since that of Carthage but ruling such a distanced region especially populated by an unfavorable subject population would be no fun for Rome
The only practical way to handle it was to treat it as a raid to avenge Crassus. Don't think they could have ruled it long term. Hadrian abandoned it for a reason.
Mongols didnt have much issue when the right person ruled. Rome itself already ruled an enormous area of also hostile or once hostile tribes. Rome already had the brutality of tactics, and they were incredibly adaptable. Parthians had mobile, calvary heavy tactics. Not hard to believe Rome would catch on quick. Hadrian and others abandoned it because the cost of holding it had to ve weighed against concurrent events at the time, and Rome simply couldnt afford it. A Rome under Caesar? With a veteran military machine like he had at the time? And the ability to focus the full might of the Empire for a long period of time? Yeah. I think he could've done it.
@@DarthMatusHolocron Yeah, only problem would be guarding the area, Persians would come in from the hills and Arabs from the desert. The area was a major target for a long time until the discovery of America's
Considering that if they had fought one civil war less before going on campaign to Parthia, the Romans would surely have had a better campaign in Parthia.
The Romans would certainly achieve better victories, but not decisive ones, and controlling plains against an empire that had its base cavalry and mounted archers show that it would be difficult to maintain such a region, so much so that the Romans even managing to conquer the capital several times, the Parthians only needed one competent general to expel the Romans to Syria.
All of you are idiots. None of this would've happened. We dont know anything about parthia that much. Because even Romans found them to be mysterious. Also rome focused more on infantry. But parthians focused ore on cavalry. Because persian terrain is different. We can see them in later roman wars.
My money would be on Caeser, the man was a military genius, and his Legions had 16 years of battle experience. In terms of leadership, combined arms operations, battle experience, there was no other army at the time like it.
@@KashTube-n8y gergovia tho he wasn’t decisively defeated. No 2 historical figures are going to follow the same exact path. Napoleons France had much tougher and numerous enemies than Caesar’s Rome. That being said they are the 2 western historical figures most similar. No one else who was performed well at such a high level both politically and militarily. I’d be curious if anyone could add anyone to that list I’m by no means an expert
The endless battles of the greatest superpowers of their age. And centuries later, it would spell the doom of them both. I wonder if anyone realized that this was an endless cycle without a winner.
I mean Rome survived for another 800 years following the Islamic conquests whereas Persia fell apart like a house of cards hence Rome is the Winner here
@@nenenindonu Yeah but they weren't the ones that conquered the Sassanids They just survived longer hence, the real winners of the wars between these empires, are muslim arabs
@@dariusghodsi2570 The Romans had enemies on all sides, fought with diminished territory, a treasury nearly never full, with everyone inside fighting against each other, they then lasted for nearly a millennium. Don't insult the men who put their blood, sweat, and tears into rebuilding the empire, and they very nearly succeeded at it too. The Komnenos, for example, nearly restored the empire back to it's original borders, the Balkans, Anatolia, Southern Itally, Syria, Egypt, and the Levant. They even persevered for over two centuries after Constantinople was sacked by the Fourth Crusade, give the Romans their due, they survived for around two millennia, possibly even up to 1919, if you count the Ottoman or Russian empires.
Very interesting to speculate! Caesar had a fantastic military mind, and had he not been murdered it's hard to say what regions Rome might have been able to conquer.⚔
I think Caesar would have been wary of over-extending Roman territory. He'd have attempted to subdue Parthia, but I doubt he'd have tried to hold Ctesiphon even if he took it. I think he'd have looked for a decisive victory over the Parthians and then forced terms on them. Creating Roman Provinces through the Levant would have been a priority, followed by the absorption of Thrace. Byzantium and Chalcedon would have given Rome the Black Sea 350 years earlier than in our timeline.
The gauls also did that... But Crassus chosen the worst route and wasn't very careful on his planning. Crassus's downfall would have given Caesar the exact description of what he was facing that crassus did not have... and thus i think he would fight accourdingly
Crassus was arrogant and can't reach the Caesar's big toe. Come on Crassus is a joke. But I can proudly say I defeated those Parthians at Carrhae wt very hard in Rome 1 remastered afther like 15 tries
@@Bullet-Tooth-Tony- Retreat to a sand hill (there is only 1 where your army can stand on) and while they did that, charge with my cavalry and get those annoying horse archers as far away as possible from my infantry. And then I was just lucky that this time I killed the 2 general (s) relatively quick because when you can't kill them fast enough you will lose. It's like 40% skill and 60% luck (if not more than this actually) imo then. Edit if you don't kill the general(s) fast enough those Cataphacts just kill your infantry very very fast. Believe me that's why I say you need to be very lucky in this battle.
Just a small note, in the Dacian trio from 4:30, the falx is pointing the wrong way, as the blade was curved forward, not back. Really enjoying the video :D good work!
I have to think with his experience against similar tactics from the Numidians Ceasar could have done quite well. Fickle Roman politics would likely still be his worst enemy.
These two empires went back and forth for nearly a millennia, so it's hard to think much would have changed in the long-term if one or the other got the upper hand in the short term.
Caesar would certainly drive deep into Persia, the example of Alexander and the promise of glory would have been too great for him not to take the opportunity
The problem here is the same as the dacian episode, Caesar explicitly wanted to take out rome's enemies for good in those campaigns, and would have not let the Dacian Kingdom or iranian heartland intact, he had no problem with genocide or long occupations. He would have taken all of Dacia besides today's moldavia, for the rich mines alone. He would have taken all of mesopotamia and devastated the persian heartland and perhaps even parthia proper around todays turkmenistan. The existence of an greater iranian state is not a guaranteed thing as alexander and the early islamic invasions show they can be knocked out for many centuries before a resurgance.
If anyone could have taken the East it would have been Caeser. It would be interesting to think what Augustus could have done with such an empire before him
Okay, now do one where Gan Ying, of ancient China, was actually able to make it to Rome itself. IF the two empires, the Roman & Chinese, were to combine, what could’ve happened?
I would love a video on what it was really like to go to the colosseum. The markets, the crowd, food stalls, live animals, the sounds and spectacles. Perhaps old men playing games in the street. Pick pockets. The whole atmosphere.
Parthia was an enemy waaay different than the other enemies of Rome. It was a well organised Empire with a massive, well trained army which had annihilated a Roman army. It's nothing similar to Gaul, Dacia, Egypt... Caesar would have suffered immensely had he launched an invasion of Parthia
It was Bassus that the Romans sent that collapsed the Parthians. He was brought into Rome as a child slave...joined the army...rose to the rank of general...inflicted so many casualties on Parthian cavalry it caused a vacuum in Parthian nobility. You are thinking of "the fool" Crassus....Bassus beat Parthia badly.
It wasn't until the Arab Muslim Calaphate that the area become more powerful but they ditched the heavy armor and went with horse archers because the Mongols were attacking
Perhaps he might have won but we will never know that. Both empires were equally strong and at the same time they needed the existence of the other. The only way I can imagine the Romans destroying the Parthians would be if they had a total war
I can wholeheartedly recommend the „Caesar Ascending“ series of books. Alt. History in a really fun to read way. At least the first 2 regarding the conquest of Parthia at still pretty realistic and take a similar approach as laid out in this video.
The ambush,hit and run and scorch earth tactics of the Parthians would be far diffrent from those that Ceasar faced in Gaul and i believe he would suffer more casualties than even crassus actually as he had far more men
Rome had the bread basket of the empire in Egypt. Back in Gaul he didn't have that luxury. Plus he had the 2 major rivers to ferry down supplies just like Trajan did.
@@misaelfraga8196 Armenia, what are you doing, my brother? I will join Parthia, and your brothers will be like betraying Pompeii, when you deceived him that we are allies of the Romans.
It's hard to imagine Julius Caesar, one of the most brilliant commanders in antiquity, making the same blunders as Crassus. Caesar was definitely capable of Pacifying Parthia. Considering Rome has a far better track record against Parthia having sacked their capital three times in a row. If Caesar can bring a big enough army like Mark Antony with 150,000 troops, conquering the Parthians is possible.
keep in mind parthias capital was closer to the roman border than romes capital was to the parthian border, id argue parthia made it further into roman territory many times than the romans into parthian territory, imagine a persian conquest all the way into britain or even germania, it was just a way tougher task reaching italy would have been impossible
Caeser, being the genious he was, would probablythink take Ctesiphon and the Mesopotamian lowlands (although w some heavy casualties). After consolidating the gains, he would probably crippled the Parthians diplomatically (they were a decentralized empire, reliant on other Iranian elites), making deals with local Persians and Median elites. A military expedition over the Zagros mountains, fighting basically against a mounted guerilla of the best cavalry in the world, would be a nightmare. Regarding the downstream consequences, I think the major ones would be economic and cultural. Persians would get Romanized and vice versa. Deeply speculative guess: instead of Christianity, Zooroastrianism would later be adopted by the Romans. If not at the whole empire, at least the Eastern part (which would eventually break down on one point in the future) which would be heavily more persianized. Also, trade and cultural exchanges with Han China would happen more and more.
"Considering Rome has a far better track record against Parthia" / Nope, 3 wins, 3 losses & 3 draws / Most of the times that the Romans were successful was due to Parthian Civil war // Compare that to the more stable Sassanians which absolutely crushed the Romans in their early wars, Until Rome made military reforms to similar armies of Horse archers and heavy cav // So Caesar will most likely end up like Napoleon in Russia
alexander taught the east how to fight a professional greek army, just like caesar taught the gauls how to fight a professional roman army. caesar would've had a much tougher time replicating alexander's success than alexander himself.
I dont think so, as the defeat of crassus would have given caesar an insight of what were the strenghts and weaknesses of Parthia in battle and maybe would have given the keys for Caesar's possible sucess, and caesar was a good analizer and observer, such trait allowed him to innovate in the battlefield, Such as when he was isolated back at spain, as he was starving in gaul at vercingetorix's rebellion, as he defeated the seafaring venetians and their ships by cutting their sails off so on. The ideas that he couldn't think, his men could. Even so, i do not think rome would go further than Persepolis in any way. It was just too much stretch
@@picollojr9009 a great General can only do that much with what he's been given // Napoleon in Russia is a great example // Unless Ceasar reforms his army to a more Cavalry focused army, rather then heavy infantry, he won't do any better then Anthony Or Might mimic Trajan if he's lucky and the Parthians go for another Civil war
I do believe that many of the enemies would have been aware to the prestige of Caesar and would have been less likely to try attacking a rome with him at the helm. I'm assuming he would have at least increased the size of his military by 25% before more campaigning. Egypt would have been a different beast because of the relationship between cleopatra and the dictator. Rome would have been 50/50 empire bound under him.
The better what if historical scenario would be if Alexander the debatably great never became the ruler of the Persian empire. It was the closest ancient empire to what we consider the west, and we ended up losing the knowledge of the library of Alexandria which probably contained the knowledge from the Persian empire among other knowledge at the time. Persia had the best engineers prior to it's fall and before Rome rose to power. Check out The Persian Empire by the great courses to get the historical context of the Persian empire
@@aburoach9268 the empire was failing regardless of any military campaign. Long peace made their military inexperienced and overconfident which lead to Alexanders victories. Not to mention succession problems and in fighting that could have easily lead to united Greek and Persian empires. The book I mentioned covers it.
Awesome video. You should do a video on What-if Aurelian survived the assassination in 275 AD. I know that had he survived the Sassanid Empire/Persians would have been in similar circumstances had Caesar been alive except you had a Rome Empire still facing multiple domestic divisions, low manpower, & much bolder foreign invasions. The death of the Sassanid King and the greater civil war in the Middle East would have given the Romans an opening to defeating their greatest rival. Still, Rome in the Third Century was a hot mess until Aurelian briefly stabilized the realm for 5 years moving from crisis to crisis. Had Aurelian lived longer & potentially defeated the Sassanids, he would be called "The Great" after being named "Restorer of the World" in 274 by the Romans.
Question: What if Caesar survived? Answer: We have conquered the Milky Way and are well on our way to conquering neighboring galaxies in our local cluster.
My opinion? I don't think Ceasar could have taken Parthia. Ceasar was an excellent tactical general, winning several battles that he probably should have lost (Alesia, Pharsalus, Munda), but I think strategically he's somewhat overrated. I think Pompey was a better strategic general (albeit not as tactically sound as Ceasar), which is why Pompey always seem to out-maneuver Ceasar in Greece right up until Pharsalus, a battle Pompey never should have granted Ceasar if not for the influence of idiots like Cato and Metellus Scipio who thought starving Ceasar and his trapped army out wasn't 'honorable'. Anyway, Ceasar was able to conquer Gaul primarily because Gaul was made up of fractured tribes that he could play off each other and defeat piecemeal - Gaul didn't really offer organized/coordinated resistance until the time of Vercingetorix and by then it was too little too late. Parthia on the other hand was a well organized, relatively centralized state with a strong military and would have been a far, far greater challenge than Gaul, and Gaul took Ceasar 10 years to conquer fully. Also keep in mind, in later centuries when the Romans did make gains against the Parthians (Trajan), this was after the political and economic reforms of Augustus, who had most importantly incorporated Egypt into the empire - the vast wealth of Egypt is how Augustus and his successors were able to pay the legions, and in this scenario Ceasar doesn't have it, so a campaign like this would have been hugely expensive without a clear way to afford it or hold it after the fact. Remember, Rome never held Trajans's conquests in Mesopotamia anyway, and that was Rome at its peak. TL:DR, Augustus was right not to enact these plans and instead focus on reform and consolidation.
It wouldn't have made sense to try to control such a far off land. Alexander kept it together but it immediately collapsed when he died. Every great Roman general in history wanted to be measured against Alexander...none of them...including Caesar..was ever able to live up to the impossible task. Caesar was absolutely remarkable in his own way but he did not have the intensity and resolve of Alexander. Imagine telling Caesar that he could win but it would be 13 years before his soldiers would go home...Alexander's soldiers didn't know...every Roman soldier knew Alexander and how long it took.
Alexander the Great defeated the Achaemenid Persians at the time of their weakness and after civil wars and the Persian army was made up of slaves who did not want to fight. While Alexander the Great had the best organized and trained army and the best weapons, the Romans and the Persians faced the Parthians and Sassanids at the time of their strength
Some people have really disorted view of Roman military. Conquering barbarian tribes is one thing, while conquering advanced civilization with actual army is whole different thing.
Fascinating subject. And great video. The problem with the far east, as the Romans would see it anyway(that is, Parthia/Persia and the lands round about them, and even further east such as India), is that the Romans at this time - and for the next couple hundred years or more - are a heavy infantry focused army. They don't have armored and heavily armed cataphracts yet, like the later Roman armies and esp the Byzantine armies did. This means they are gonna be REALLY effective IF they can close the distance with the enemy, and on uneven Terrain; but with say like an open field or desert, both of which Parthia/Persia are FULL of, the enemy can simply harass them and kill their troops with parthian shots and ride off on their horses without having to worry about too many of them being killed in retaliation and defense. This is a problem not just with the Parthia/Persian state itself but with all the surrounding lands, which all have similar wide OPEN terrain that horse archers and cataphracts can exploit. If the battle is ever brought close the Romans will squash them of course; but I don't see that happening that often, esp after Ctesiphon and Seleukia is taken, the Parthians/Persians will NOT engage because they would have no more cities to protect in the west of their empire(besides little villages and small towns and they prob wouldn't risk their mounted nobles for those little things) and would engage in hit and run tactics and small scale battles of 1 or 2 legions at a time(if they can; or even smaller groups of men) for the next HUNDREDS OF MILES. Even Alexander didn't have to deal with THAT. And Alexander had arguably better cavalry than the Romans of this period we're discussing; better than the auxiliary cavalry, too, imo, and yet Alexander and the Macedonians still had trouble with this same issue; savages from the steppe coming down into his newly won empire and trying to rob and murder and so on. The Romans are THE BEST when it comes to operating in Europe, in North Africa, in West Asia, the lands bordering the Mediterranean sea or close enough; or lands simply without TONS of good cavalry country. But sending them against the Parthians INSIDE Parthian land is a bad idea as history proved; its amazing they managed to break even with the parthians and Sassanids in terms of victories and defeats, honestly, considering how much the land and sheer size favored the horse mounted armies of the Parthians/Persians and likewise was a HUGE obstacle to the Romans. Still Caesar was a Genius in many ways including Militarily, and I think he could probably pull off something incredible even in this situation fighting inside the Parthians home turf against their best, and still win. But I think his hypothetical Dacian and Germanic and Britannic campaigns would be FAR more interesting to hear about and would be FAR closer, and much more suited to the Roman/European way of war. However I still think the bloodthirsty Cassius and jealous and paranoid Brutus and the rest of the traitorous murderers of Caesar would have still EVENTUALLY gone through with their plot. Remember even when they assassinated him he was basically still at the HEIGHT of his popularity(which was also the reason for the IMMENSE and unforeseen by the Assassins, public Backlash against them and their crimes, resulting in them burning the Senate to the ground and making the Assassins flee the city and go into hiding in far off places). So I think even if he had been able to go through with ALL of his plans, and was successful in every single war he waged, he would have at some point still been assassinated if he still kept trusting Brutus and the other lowly traitors that murdered him in the end after all the favor he had shown them(sparing their lives many times, above all). It was always gonna fall to Augustus. Caesarion would never have been accepted as Emperor or direct heir to Caesar because of his mother, Cleopatra, who was distrusted and hated as well as feared. Mark Antony essentially marrying her and agreeing in no uncertain terms to divide the Roman peoples Empire into the hands of Antony and Cleopatra's children is a great example of the kind of treachery you can expect from Cleopatra or really ANY of the Ptolemaic dynasty. They weren't trustworthy people in the slightest degree. Nor did they seem to fully understand Roman politics; and Mark Antony was a drunken frat boy when it came to her. So Augustus would always have been the Roman people's choice of Heir to Caesar; and if Caesar was as smart in this hypothetical timeline as he was in Real life, then Caesar would have made Octavian the future Augustus his heir just like he did in reality in this scenario; despite knowing full well what that meant for Caesarion, Mark Antony, and the rest. You should explore other similar topics. I also want more historical mid and late Roman military and political videos. The latter wars against the Sassanid Persians, when it was still a sort of cold war, would be very interesting to hear from your point of view. I also would like to know when EXACTLY the Romans adopted the widespread use of cataphract cavalry instead of it being rare in their forces, like it was in the early empire.
I'm looking for a good Historical wargame I can play on my cellphone. This or medevil- Renaissance time period. Any suggestions? Watching these videos puts me into armchair General mode. LoL
Definitely think the Romans would have been better focusing on the East rather than Germania/Britania, could they have replicated Alexanders conquest, who knows?
How successful do you think Caesar would have been against the Parthians? (You can Install Raid for Free on Mobile and PC: clik.cc/qJLzi and get a special starter pack :boom: Available only for the next 30 days)
Somewhat successful, Parthia was not at all like Gaul
Ｉ don't know but i must say Invicta and K&G are two of the very best channels! I really love your work, since I never got much into Ancient history so your helping cover some gaps in my knowledge. Thank you for all you do!
He'd perform better than Marc Anthony I know that's not saying much but I don't think Caesar would've alienated Armenia like Anthony did.
SO EPIC. imagine a tv series like HBO ROME with your what if as the main story of a show.
@@JTL1776 there is a book series by R.W. peake called Caesar Ascended which deals with the exact same thing. It’s less objective in its approach but still a good read in my opinion
Whenever Caesar is in trouble in a timeline, just build walls - he always built walls, even had "wall-building races" with Pompei. Just build walls, he'll be fine.
You are right😂👍👍👍
Caesar is the boss
All of you are idiots. None of this would've happened. We dont know anything about parthia that much. Because even Romans found them to be mysterious. Also rome focused more on infantry. But parthians focused ore on cavalry. Because persian terrain is different. We can see them in later roman wars.
Could've been the greatest conquest since that of Carthage but ruling such a distanced region especially populated by an unfavorable subject population would be no fun for Rome
The only practical way to handle it was to treat it as a raid to avenge Crassus. Don't think they could have ruled it long term. Hadrian abandoned it for a reason.
Mongols didnt have much issue when the right person ruled. Rome itself already ruled an enormous area of also hostile or once hostile tribes. Rome already had the brutality of tactics, and they were incredibly adaptable. Parthians had mobile, calvary heavy tactics. Not hard to believe Rome would catch on quick. Hadrian and others abandoned it because the cost of holding it had to ve weighed against concurrent events at the time, and Rome simply couldnt afford it.
A Rome under Caesar? With a veteran military machine like he had at the time? And the ability to focus the full might of the Empire for a long period of time? Yeah. I think he could've done it.
@@DarthMatusHolocron Imagine if there was no Roman Civil war as well, that's another 200,000 soldiers for the Empire.
@@DarthMatusHolocron It definitely had the profitability to make it worth it. Think Egypt, but on a larger scale.
@@DarthMatusHolocron Yeah, only problem would be guarding the area, Persians would come in from the hills and Arabs from the desert. The area was a major target for a long time until the discovery of America's
Considering that if they had fought one civil war less before going on campaign to Parthia, the Romans would surely have had a better campaign in Parthia.
I don't think Rome would have expanded into eastern Iran
@@artinrahideh1229 and into Canada? I think if left unchecked, Cesar maybe could invade Canada. Or Cuba, but Rome wasn't that great at seas.
@@rodrigochiberio5472 The Parthia cavalry wants to talk to you and the Sarmatians
The Romans would certainly achieve better victories, but not decisive ones, and controlling plains against an empire that had its base cavalry and mounted archers show that it would be difficult to maintain such a region, so much so that the Romans even managing to conquer the capital several times, the Parthians only needed one competent general to expel the Romans to Syria.
All of you are idiots. None of this would've happened. We dont know anything about parthia that much. Because even Romans found them to be mysterious. Also rome focused more on infantry. But parthians focused ore on cavalry. Because persian terrain is different. We can see them in later roman wars.
Man, imagine if Julius had achieved all of his goals and then one day he would come back to the statue of his Hero.
Whom do you mean?
@@afk2514 Alexander the Great
@@blugaledoh2669 thought so.
The Good ending
@@xiuhcoatl4830 The good fucking ending 😭😭🤧
My money would be on Caeser, the man was a military genius, and his Legions had 16 years of battle experience. In terms of leadership, combined arms operations, battle experience, there was no other army at the time like it.
Just like Napoleon? :D
@@shorewall He was Romes Napoleon
@@richardthelionheart6924 how so? As far as I recall, Ceasar was not decisively defeated in any war/battle unlike Napoleon.
@@benedictjajo I am pretty sure that he was defeated a few times in the Gallic wars. Just can't remember the battles.
@@KashTube-n8y gergovia tho he wasn’t decisively defeated. No 2 historical figures are going to follow the same exact path. Napoleons France had much tougher and numerous enemies than Caesar’s Rome. That being said they are the 2 western historical figures most similar. No one else who was performed well at such a high level both politically and militarily. I’d be curious if anyone could add anyone to that list I’m by no means an expert
I've never clicked on one of your videos faster!
You guys doing alternative history is such a great way to open up a new flow of audience
The endless battles of the greatest superpowers of their age. And centuries later, it would spell the doom of them both. I wonder if anyone realized that this was an endless cycle without a winner.
I mean Rome survived for another 800 years following the Islamic conquests whereas Persia fell apart like a house of cards hence Rome is the Winner here
The rivalry and battles between the Iranians (Parthians and Sassanids) and the Romans made hundred years war look like a joke
@@nenenindonu Yeah but they weren't the ones that conquered the Sassanids
They just survived longer hence, the real winners of the wars between these empires, are muslim arabs
@@dariusghodsi2570 The Romans had enemies on all sides, fought with diminished territory, a treasury nearly never full, with everyone inside fighting against each other, they then lasted for nearly a millennium. Don't insult the men who put their blood, sweat, and tears into rebuilding the empire, and they very nearly succeeded at it too. The Komnenos, for example, nearly restored the empire back to it's original borders, the Balkans, Anatolia, Southern Itally, Syria, Egypt, and the Levant. They even persevered for over two centuries after Constantinople was sacked by the Fourth Crusade, give the Romans their due, they survived for around two millennia, possibly even up to 1919, if you count the Ottoman or Russian empires.
@@dariusghodsi2570 Nope. Manzikert, 1071.
Very interesting to speculate! Caesar had a fantastic military mind, and had he not been murdered it's hard to say what regions Rome might have been able to conquer.⚔
My man would have conquered the stars had he lived.
you have no idea how long- wait. you do know how long we’ve waited for this lol
1980 years
I think Caesar would have been wary of over-extending Roman territory. He'd have attempted to subdue Parthia, but I doubt he'd have tried to hold Ctesiphon even if he took it. I think he'd have looked for a decisive victory over the Parthians and then forced terms on them. Creating Roman Provinces through the Levant would have been a priority, followed by the absorption of Thrace. Byzantium and Chalcedon would have given Rome the Black Sea 350 years earlier than in our timeline.
The Parthian would probably be using ambush, hit and run, scorch earth tactics when against Caesar, they beat Crassus at Carrhae.
The gauls also did that... But Crassus chosen the worst route and wasn't very careful on his planning. Crassus's downfall would have given Caesar the exact description of what he was facing that crassus did not have... and thus i think he would fight accourdingly
Maybe but we will never know what could happen if Caesar survived his assassination, Parthia is different beast compared to the Gaul
Crassus was arrogant and can't reach the Caesar's big toe. Come on Crassus is a joke. But I can proudly say I defeated those Parthians at Carrhae wt very hard in Rome 1 remastered afther like 15 tries
@@Kvs-vf9nt What did you do to win
@@Bullet-Tooth-Tony- Retreat to a sand hill (there is only 1 where your army can stand on) and while they did that, charge with my cavalry and get those annoying horse archers as far away as possible from my infantry. And then I was just lucky that this time I killed the 2 general (s) relatively quick because when you can't kill them fast enough you will lose. It's like 40% skill and 60% luck (if not more than this actually) imo then.
Edit if you don't kill the general(s) fast enough those Cataphacts just kill your infantry very very fast. Believe me that's why I say you need to be very lucky in this battle.
Cesar survived too many battles already, what if he survived is just placing him into the hall of imortals.
4:27 as i know the tip of the falx is supposed to be headed towards the enemy.
Great video.
Perfect timing for an upload during my lunch break at work
Just when I thought you forgot about Caesar's other wife, you brought her in at the end. Nicely done.
FINALLY after a lot of time of waiting👍
An interesting Video series idea, "What if Alexander the Great didn't die at 32 years old"
Just a small note, in the Dacian trio from 4:30, the falx is pointing the wrong way, as the blade was curved forward, not back. Really enjoying the video :D good work!
Alternate history featuring Rome is so deeply fascinating! I really do need to get back to work on my alt history Rome book lol
I have to think with his experience against similar tactics from the Numidians Ceasar could have done quite well. Fickle Roman politics would likely still be his worst enemy.
And his seizures also to be fair. He was getting really old by this time
These two empires went back and forth for nearly a millennia, so it's hard to think much would have changed in the long-term if one or the other got the upper hand in the short term.
Caesar would certainly drive deep into Persia, the example of Alexander and the promise of glory would have been too great for him not to take the opportunity
The problem here is the same as the dacian episode, Caesar explicitly wanted to take out rome's enemies for good in those campaigns, and would have not let the Dacian Kingdom or iranian heartland intact, he had no problem with genocide or long occupations.
He would have taken all of Dacia besides today's moldavia, for the rich mines alone.
He would have taken all of mesopotamia and devastated the persian heartland and perhaps even parthia proper around todays turkmenistan. The existence of an greater iranian state is not a guaranteed thing as alexander and the early islamic invasions show they can be knocked out for many centuries before a resurgance.
It is very interesting going back in history and thinking of other outcomes or timelines
If anyone could have taken the East it would have been Caeser. It would be interesting to think what Augustus could have done with such an empire before him
Emperor Trajan did. It was only his advanced age that kept him from a total conquest. Not the Persians.
And maybe more important, if Caesar would have had enough time to train Augustus, so that he wouldn't have started his reign as a mediocre ruler
That's assuming Octavian would have still been his heir and not Caesarian, Caesar's son by Cleopatra
@@ApexCalibre that's a huge point! Caesarian being a grown up at the time of Caesar's death would have been a huge issue
Okay, now do one where Gan Ying, of ancient China, was actually able to make it to Rome itself. IF the two empires, the Roman & Chinese, were to combine, what could’ve happened?
Mandarin would have become a Romance language.......
Maybe, @@willrobinson5350, maybe…
Awww man this is great thank you so much ❤️❤️
Fantastic look into some into some what if history.
I would love a video on what it was really like to go to the colosseum. The markets, the crowd, food stalls, live animals, the sounds and spectacles. Perhaps old men playing games in the street. Pick pockets. The whole atmosphere.
The voice foe history of units needs to be your channels voice. I love that voice
Parthia was an enemy waaay different than the other enemies of Rome. It was a well organised Empire with a massive, well trained army which had annihilated a Roman army. It's nothing similar to Gaul, Dacia, Egypt... Caesar would have suffered immensely had he launched an invasion of Parthia
Yeah only Alexander could beat that..
Not to mention the deserts there
It was Bassus that the Romans sent that collapsed the Parthians. He was brought into Rome as a child slave...joined the army...rose to the rank of general...inflicted so many casualties on Parthian cavalry it caused a vacuum in Parthian nobility. You are thinking of "the fool" Crassus....Bassus beat Parthia badly.
Here you go...how Rome defeated Parthia and horse archers: ruclips.net/video/l1Qy62Mp4wk/видео.html
It wasn't until the Arab Muslim Calaphate that the area become more powerful but they ditched the heavy armor and went with horse archers because the Mongols were attacking
Perhaps he might have won but we will never know that. Both empires were equally strong and at the same time they needed the existence of the other. The only way I can imagine the Romans destroying the Parthians would be if they had a total war
Oh my god the madman did it the final episode is here
We would’ve addressed Caesar in the 4th person…
Literally julis ceaser assasinated just because he wanted to attack parthia. Thats why parthian persian empire was nightmare of romans
Caesar was assassinated because he wanted it to be the Republic
Thank you for this and all of your videos!
I can wholeheartedly recommend the „Caesar Ascending“ series of books. Alt. History in a really fun to read way. At least the first 2 regarding the conquest of Parthia at still pretty realistic and take a similar approach as laid out in this video.
I would like even more about what could have happened if ceaser survived
Are you guys going to re-upload the What if Caesar lived video that was posted on April 1st?
Been waiting for this one!
The ambush,hit and run and scorch earth tactics of the Parthians would be far diffrent from those that Ceasar faced in Gaul and i believe he would suffer more casualties than even crassus actually as he had far more men
Rome had the bread basket of the empire in Egypt. Back in Gaul he didn't have that luxury. Plus he had the 2 major rivers to ferry down supplies just like Trajan did.
@@misaelfraga8196 Armenia, what are you doing, my brother? I will join Parthia, and your brothers will be like betraying Pompeii, when you deceived him that we are allies of the Romans.
It's hard to imagine Julius Caesar, one of the most brilliant commanders in antiquity, making the same blunders as Crassus. Caesar was definitely capable of Pacifying Parthia. Considering Rome has a far better track record against Parthia having sacked their capital three times in a row. If Caesar can bring a big enough army like Mark Antony with 150,000 troops, conquering the Parthians is possible.
keep in mind parthias capital was closer to the roman border than romes capital was to the parthian border, id argue parthia made it further into roman territory many times than the romans into parthian territory, imagine a persian conquest all the way into britain or even germania, it was just a way tougher task reaching italy would have been impossible
Caeser, being the genious he was, would probablythink take Ctesiphon and the Mesopotamian lowlands (although w some heavy casualties). After consolidating the gains, he would probably crippled the Parthians diplomatically (they were a decentralized empire, reliant on other Iranian elites), making deals with local Persians and Median elites. A military expedition over the Zagros mountains, fighting basically against a mounted guerilla of the best cavalry in the world, would be a nightmare. Regarding the downstream consequences, I think the major ones would be economic and cultural. Persians would get Romanized and vice versa. Deeply speculative guess: instead of Christianity, Zooroastrianism would later be adopted by the Romans. If not at the whole empire, at least the Eastern part (which would eventually break down on one point in the future) which would be heavily more persianized. Also, trade and cultural exchanges with Han China would happen more and more.
"Considering Rome has a far better track record against Parthia" / Nope, 3 wins, 3 losses & 3 draws / Most of the times that the Romans were successful was due to Parthian Civil war // Compare that to the more stable Sassanians which absolutely crushed the Romans in their early wars, Until Rome made military reforms to similar armies of Horse archers and heavy cav // So Caesar will most likely end up like Napoleon in Russia
alexander taught the east how to fight a professional greek army, just like caesar taught the gauls how to fight a professional roman army. caesar would've had a much tougher time replicating alexander's success than alexander himself.
I dont think so, as the defeat of crassus would have given caesar an insight of what were the strenghts and weaknesses of Parthia in battle and maybe would have given the keys for Caesar's possible sucess, and caesar was a good analizer and observer, such trait allowed him to innovate in the battlefield, Such as when he was isolated back at spain, as he was starving in gaul at vercingetorix's rebellion, as he defeated the seafaring venetians and their ships by cutting their sails off so on. The ideas that he couldn't think, his men could. Even so, i do not think rome would go further than Persepolis in any way. It was just too much stretch
@@picollojr9009 a great General can only do that much with what he's been given // Napoleon in Russia is a great example // Unless Ceasar reforms his army to a more Cavalry focused army, rather then heavy infantry, he won't do any better then Anthony Or Might mimic Trajan if he's lucky and the Parthians go for another Civil war
True, but remember that Pompey Magnus had also taught Caesar how to fight against a professional Roman army ;)
@@aburoach9268 He would. But history is history, what did not happen are possibilities
@@aburoach9268 The Parthians had plenty of exploitable weaknesses, no need to reform the Roman Army.
If they made this into a movie or tv series it would rival Gladiator
The series is back >3
This dude really out here selling his soul to raid shadow legends.
We're finally back, yessssss 😭
I do believe that many of the enemies would have been aware to the prestige of Caesar and would have been less likely to try attacking a rome with him at the helm. I'm assuming he would have at least increased the size of his military by 25% before more campaigning. Egypt would have been a different beast because of the relationship between cleopatra and the dictator. Rome would have been 50/50 empire bound under him.
Armenia and Parthia laugh Parthia's heavy cavalry will easily destroy the Roman cavalry
feels like its been 100 years
The better what if historical scenario would be if Alexander the debatably great never became the ruler of the Persian empire. It was the closest ancient empire to what we consider the west, and we ended up losing the knowledge of the library of Alexandria which probably contained the knowledge from the Persian empire among other knowledge at the time. Persia had the best engineers prior to it's fall and before Rome rose to power. Check out The Persian Empire by the great courses to get the historical context of the Persian empire
Cyrus should've never moved against the Scythians but just built Walls
@@aburoach9268 the empire was failing regardless of any military campaign. Long peace made their military inexperienced and overconfident which lead to Alexanders victories. Not to mention succession problems and in fighting that could have easily lead to united Greek and Persian empires. The book I mentioned covers it.
Awesome video. You should do a video on What-if Aurelian survived the assassination in 275 AD. I know that had he survived the Sassanid Empire/Persians would have been in similar circumstances had Caesar been alive except you had a Rome Empire still facing multiple domestic divisions, low manpower, & much bolder foreign invasions.
The death of the Sassanid King and the greater civil war in the Middle East would have given the Romans an opening to defeating their greatest rival. Still, Rome in the Third Century was a hot mess until Aurelian briefly stabilized the realm for 5 years moving from crisis to crisis. Had Aurelian lived longer & potentially defeated the Sassanids, he would be called "The Great" after being named "Restorer of the World" in 274 by the Romans.
13:40This building was built during the Sassanid period, not during the Parthian period
Great Video - I love Wotifs
Solid work! Glad you avoided the wank seen elsewhere.
The way you read the historical pitched battles almost feels like some Roman orator spreading the glorious history of Rome to the plebs.
That is why wars continue for more than 700 years
OH HELL YA THIS IS BACK
As an Iranian I have to say: we would have won again Caesar 😉😋
Yes we would. Caesar's head and right hand would have joined that of Crassus as a theater prop.
Let the delusional Romaboos have fun in their fantasy lmao
Question: What if Caesar survived?
Answer: We have conquered the Milky Way and are well on our way to conquering neighboring galaxies in our local cluster.
Chadus Maximus, we meet again.
I think that role had never fought too much cavalry up to this point (besides the Greeks) but the parthians are on another level at cavalry.
There better be video telling what happened after Caesars death.
Love this series
My opinion? I don't think Ceasar could have taken Parthia. Ceasar was an excellent tactical general, winning several battles that he probably should have lost (Alesia, Pharsalus, Munda), but I think strategically he's somewhat overrated. I think Pompey was a better strategic general (albeit not as tactically sound as Ceasar), which is why Pompey always seem to out-maneuver Ceasar in Greece right up until Pharsalus, a battle Pompey never should have granted Ceasar if not for the influence of idiots like Cato and Metellus Scipio who thought starving Ceasar and his trapped army out wasn't 'honorable'. Anyway, Ceasar was able to conquer Gaul primarily because Gaul was made up of fractured tribes that he could play off each other and defeat piecemeal - Gaul didn't really offer organized/coordinated resistance until the time of Vercingetorix and by then it was too little too late. Parthia on the other hand was a well organized, relatively centralized state with a strong military and would have been a far, far greater challenge than Gaul, and Gaul took Ceasar 10 years to conquer fully. Also keep in mind, in later centuries when the Romans did make gains against the Parthians (Trajan), this was after the political and economic reforms of Augustus, who had most importantly incorporated Egypt into the empire - the vast wealth of Egypt is how Augustus and his successors were able to pay the legions, and in this scenario Ceasar doesn't have it, so a campaign like this would have been hugely expensive without a clear way to afford it or hold it after the fact. Remember, Rome never held Trajans's conquests in Mesopotamia anyway, and that was Rome at its peak. TL:DR, Augustus was right not to enact these plans and instead focus on reform and consolidation.
I was rooting for the Parthians.
Based.
Zende Bād, Shahanshahi-e Ashkani
Caesar wanted to conquer Dacia first so this whole scenario is extremely unlikely.
That was actually covered in a previous episodes of this alternative history
What if Manzikert never happened would be an interesting point? Or if Seleucus Soter wasn’t assassinated?
Give us back the April Fools Day video!
anyone knows the music from 15:30 to the end of the video?
It wouldn't have made sense to try to control such a far off land. Alexander kept it together but it immediately collapsed when he died. Every great Roman general in history wanted to be measured against Alexander...none of them...including Caesar..was ever able to live up to the impossible task. Caesar was absolutely remarkable in his own way but he did not have the intensity and resolve of Alexander. Imagine telling Caesar that he could win but it would be 13 years before his soldiers would go home...Alexander's soldiers didn't know...every Roman soldier knew Alexander and how long it took.
Alexander the Great defeated the Achaemenid Persians at the time of their weakness and after civil wars and the Persian army was made up of slaves who did not want to fight. While Alexander the Great had the best organized and trained army and the best weapons, the Romans and the Persians faced the Parthians and Sassanids at the time of their strength
Caesar was too nice if he had done what followed he would have been alive for this.
A video on the social war could be interesting.
You should check out Morra and Lex Arcana games which both have alternate histories in Rome.
Wait a minute, after all this time?
I’d follow Gaivs Ivlivs Caesar blindfolded.
He was a force of nature.
Some people have really disorted view of Roman military. Conquering barbarian tribes is one thing, while conquering advanced civilization with actual army is whole different thing.
No way it’s back
And what if Maximus had lived earlier and was there too.
The cover says surived not survived that's a typo correct it!!
Great video! Could you make an alternate fate for Alexander the great?? That would be awesome!
Caesar never lost a major battle did he? But perhaps Parthia might have been his "bridge too far".
If anyone could do it it was Caesar and Antonius together.
Interesting.
They'd have moved to Constantinople sooner?
Question -Sir can you guys do mediveal ages documantery plz
If you gave Caesar just a slither of a chance, he will take it.
Damn good!! Please excuse my enthusiasm!
Fascinating subject. And great video.
The problem with the far east, as the Romans would see it anyway(that is, Parthia/Persia and the lands round about them, and even further east such as India), is that the Romans at this time - and for the next couple hundred years or more - are a heavy infantry focused army. They don't have armored and heavily armed cataphracts yet, like the later Roman armies and esp the Byzantine armies did. This means they are gonna be REALLY effective IF they can close the distance with the enemy, and on uneven Terrain; but with say like an open field or desert, both of which Parthia/Persia are FULL of, the enemy can simply harass them and kill their troops with parthian shots and ride off on their horses without having to worry about too many of them being killed in retaliation and defense. This is a problem not just with the Parthia/Persian state itself but with all the surrounding lands, which all have similar wide OPEN terrain that horse archers and cataphracts can exploit. If the battle is ever brought close the Romans will squash them of course; but I don't see that happening that often, esp after Ctesiphon and Seleukia is taken, the Parthians/Persians will NOT engage because they would have no more cities to protect in the west of their empire(besides little villages and small towns and they prob wouldn't risk their mounted nobles for those little things) and would engage in hit and run tactics and small scale battles of 1 or 2 legions at a time(if they can; or even smaller groups of men) for the next HUNDREDS OF MILES.
Even Alexander didn't have to deal with THAT. And Alexander had arguably better cavalry than the Romans of this period we're discussing; better than the auxiliary cavalry, too, imo, and yet Alexander and the Macedonians still had trouble with this same issue; savages from the steppe coming down into his newly won empire and trying to rob and murder and so on. The Romans are THE BEST when it comes to operating in Europe, in North Africa, in West Asia, the lands bordering the Mediterranean sea or close enough; or lands simply without TONS of good cavalry country. But sending them against the Parthians INSIDE Parthian land is a bad idea as history proved; its amazing they managed to break even with the parthians and Sassanids in terms of victories and defeats, honestly, considering how much the land and sheer size favored the horse mounted armies of the Parthians/Persians and likewise was a HUGE obstacle to the Romans.
Still Caesar was a Genius in many ways including Militarily, and I think he could probably pull off something incredible even in this situation fighting inside the Parthians home turf against their best, and still win. But I think his hypothetical Dacian and Germanic and Britannic campaigns would be FAR more interesting to hear about and would be FAR closer, and much more suited to the Roman/European way of war. However I still think the bloodthirsty Cassius and jealous and paranoid Brutus and the rest of the traitorous murderers of Caesar would have still EVENTUALLY gone through with their plot. Remember even when they assassinated him he was basically still at the HEIGHT of his popularity(which was also the reason for the IMMENSE and unforeseen by the Assassins, public Backlash against them and their crimes, resulting in them burning the Senate to the ground and making the Assassins flee the city and go into hiding in far off places). So I think even if he had been able to go through with ALL of his plans, and was successful in every single war he waged, he would have at some point still been assassinated if he still kept trusting Brutus and the other lowly traitors that murdered him in the end after all the favor he had shown them(sparing their lives many times, above all).
It was always gonna fall to Augustus. Caesarion would never have been accepted as Emperor or direct heir to Caesar because of his mother, Cleopatra, who was distrusted and hated as well as feared. Mark Antony essentially marrying her and agreeing in no uncertain terms to divide the Roman peoples Empire into the hands of Antony and Cleopatra's children is a great example of the kind of treachery you can expect from Cleopatra or really ANY of the Ptolemaic dynasty. They weren't trustworthy people in the slightest degree. Nor did they seem to fully understand Roman politics; and Mark Antony was a drunken frat boy when it came to her. So Augustus would always have been the Roman people's choice of Heir to Caesar; and if Caesar was as smart in this hypothetical timeline as he was in Real life, then Caesar would have made Octavian the future Augustus his heir just like he did in reality in this scenario; despite knowing full well what that meant for Caesarion, Mark Antony, and the rest.
You should explore other similar topics. I also want more historical mid and late Roman military and political videos. The latter wars against the Sassanid Persians, when it was still a sort of cold war, would be very interesting to hear from your point of view. I also would like to know when EXACTLY the Romans adopted the widespread use of cataphract cavalry instead of it being rare in their forces, like it was in the early empire.
And what if Surena didn’t executed by Orodes. He defeated Crassus in 1vs4 battle.
It is invicta's stated policy that if you don't support child castration, they will ban you.
Great vid
The Parthians might have been ready
At some point the Romans needed to form an alliance with the Kushan Empire and divide Parthia between them.
Cant a vedio about the shadowtroopers from star wars?
When you are the first comment to the comment section, this is the only comment you read...
I'm looking for a good Historical wargame I can play on my cellphone. This or medevil- Renaissance time period. Any suggestions? Watching these videos puts me into armchair General mode. LoL
Please make a video on Pallava Dynasty (c. 275 - 897 CE)
Definitely think the Romans would have been better focusing on the East rather than Germania/Britania, could they have replicated Alexanders conquest, who knows?
He would have surpassed Alexander if successful, & his odds where not to bad, but of course enemy’s from a distant land weren’t Caesar only rivals
What if Caesar *had survived.
Without "had" you are asking whether he survived, not what if he would have...