Historum - History Forums  

Go Back   Historum - History Forums > Themes in History > Speculative History
Register Forums Blogs Social Groups Mark Forums Read

Speculative History Speculative History Forum - Alternate History, What If Questions, Pseudo History, and anything outside the boundaries of mainstream historical research


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old July 8th, 2012, 03:48 PM   #21
Historian
 
Joined: Jun 2012
From: At present SD, USA
Posts: 1,391

While I think the Romans would have the technology and tactics to conquer India, I don't they had the men or would have the opportunity. While Trajan would defeat and conquer the Parthans, he only occupied Armenia and the Tigris/Eurphretes river basin to the Gulf of Persia (don't ya just hate it when you get the wrong gulf?). This left much of the Parthan Empire unoccupied and allowed it to fall under the Sassanid dynasty in a fairly short period of time. Just to get to India, the Romans would need to finish conquering the Parthans/Sassanids and occupy it. To do this, Rome would need to massively increase the size of its army, just to maintain a firm stance in western Europe and along the Danube.

I'd expect that if Trajan continued to press east he might have been able to overpower the Parthans/Sassanids and secure their loyalty to the Empire, but would then need to stop and reorganize to integrate the Parthan/Sassanid military system into the Roman military system, which would take time. By the earliest possible time this could have been done, Trajan would have died and Hadrian would have taken the throne, and given Hadrian's politics, Rome would have abandoned all of Trajan's conquests in favor of a more defensable line.

Last edited by Sam-Nary; July 8th, 2012 at 04:10 PM. Reason: Missnamed the Persian Gulf as the Gulf of Mexico... D'OH!
Sam-Nary is offline  
Remove Ads
Old July 8th, 2012, 03:51 PM   #22

Mosquito's Avatar
bloody
 
Joined: Apr 2011
From: Sarmatia
Posts: 3,590

Such operation would be impossible for political reasons. No emperor could leave empire for such expedition, it would take too much time and there was risk that when coming back someone else will take the power meantime.
And there would be no general to trust him enough to give such great army to command, he could have come back with it as belowed leader of such army and overthrone emperor.
Mosquito is offline  
Old July 8th, 2012, 03:54 PM   #23

emperor of seleucid's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Feb 2012
From: Arche Seleukeia
Posts: 2,376

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mangekyou View Post
Right, ill forget the fact you are showing me a modern world map, and point out that the areas where Babylon would have been are shaded with risk.

So cut your ignorance out please.
How about you cut your ignorance. Alexander after going to india. There are hypothesis that tropicals climate gave him diseases.
emperor of seleucid is offline  
Old July 8th, 2012, 04:00 PM   #24

Mangekyou's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Jan 2010
From: UK
Posts: 3,805
Blog Entries: 1

Quote:
Originally Posted by emperor of seleucid View Post
How about you cut your ignorance. Alexander after going to india. There are hypothesis that tropicals climate gave him diseases.
Im not disagreeing with that. Im saying it may have been Malaria becasue it was rampant in Babylon at the time. It could have also been poison..Both options much discussed. However, considering he was badly wounded in India and he wa prone to the odd Bacchanalia, disease is a likelier option.
Mangekyou is offline  
Old July 8th, 2012, 04:01 PM   #25
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: May 2012
From: Nonbeing which is to say everywhere
Posts: 3,730

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam-Nary View Post
While I think the Romans would have the technology and tactics to conquer India, I don't they had the men or would have the opportunity. While Trajan would defeat and conquer the Parthans, he only occupied Armenia and the Tigris/Eurphretes river basin to the Gulf of Mexico. This left much of the Parthan Empire unoccupied and allowed it to fall under the Sassanid dynasty in a fairly short period of time. Just to get to India, the Romans would need to finish conquering the Parthans/Sassanids and occupy it. To do this, Rome would need to massively increase the size of its army, just to maintain a firm stance in western Europe and along the Danube.

I'd expect that if Trajan continued to press east he might have been able to overpower the Parthans/Sassanids and secure their loyalty to the Empire, but would then need to stop and reorganize to integrate the Parthan/Sassanid military system into the Roman military system, which would take time. By the earliest possible time this could have been done, Trajan would have died and Hadrian would have taken the throne, and given Hadrian's politics, Rome would have abandoned all of Trajan's conquests in favor of a more defensable line.
In the OP the army is transported by sea.
Delenda est Roma is offline  
Old July 8th, 2012, 04:05 PM   #26
Historian
 
Joined: Jun 2012
From: At present SD, USA
Posts: 1,391

Quote:
Originally Posted by Delenda est Roma View Post
In the OP the army is transported by sea.
Rome would still need to expand its army to undertake such a campaign. Moving by sea would bypass the Parthan/Sassanid Empire, but the Romans would still need to enlarge the army to maintain its other borders, which would raise taxes to both pay the soldiers and to pay for their being equipped and transported to India.

I don't think Rome could have done so easily. At least not during Trajan's lifetime.
Sam-Nary is offline  
Old July 8th, 2012, 04:06 PM   #27

Mangekyou's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Jan 2010
From: UK
Posts: 3,805
Blog Entries: 1

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam-Nary View Post
While I think the Romans would have the technology and tactics to conquer India, I don't they had the men or would have the opportunity. While Trajan would defeat and conquer the Parthans, he only occupied Armenia and the Tigris/Eurphretes river basin to the Gulf of Mexico. This left much of the Parthan Empire unoccupied and allowed it to fall under the Sassanid dynasty in a fairly short period of time. Just to get to India, the Romans would need to finish conquering the Parthans/Sassanids and occupy it. To do this, Rome would need to massively increase the size of its army, just to maintain a firm stance in western Europe and along the Danube.

I'd expect that if Trajan continued to press east he might have been able to overpower the Parthans/Sassanids and secure their loyalty to the Empire, but would then need to stop and reorganize to integrate the Parthan/Sassanid military system into the Roman military system, which would take time. By the earliest possible time this could have been done, Trajan would have died and Hadrian would have taken the throne, and given Hadrian's politics, Rome would have abandoned all of Trajan's conquests in favor of a more defensable line.
If the expedition went through land based route or if we are continuing from when he was alive and campaining, I would probably agree. Hadrian would certainly pull the borders back.
Mangekyou is offline  
Old July 8th, 2012, 04:07 PM   #28

Guaporense's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Mar 2011
Posts: 4,062
Blog Entries: 9
Roman silver and the Indian Economy


I should add that those 300,000 soldiers, each making 900 sestertii of silver per year, would have a total income of 270 million sestertii per year, which would be spend in India, that's about 300 tons of silver. Add the incomes of the centurions and other elite soldiers, which made 15 to 50 times the typical legionary salary and the expenditures increase to 350 tons.

The fleet of 200,000 tons to supply the invasion force will only be used in case the local supplies are not enough. Local food will be the main source of food if everything goes right. Food purchased with Roman silver coins.

Therefore, each year of the invasion will inject into India 350 tons of silver. Over the 5-6 years of the invasion, a total of 1,750 to 2,100 tons of silver would be injected into India. For comparison, China imported a total of 7,300 tons of silver during the whole 16th and 17th centuries. That was enough silver to actually change the monetary system of China to a silver based monetary system. And India's population in the 2nd century was a fraction of China's population in the 17th century. Hence, 2,000 tons of silver would be actually enough to turn India into a silver using economy and therefore will convert it into a cash cow province for Rome.
Guaporense is offline  
Old July 8th, 2012, 04:10 PM   #29

Mangekyou's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Jan 2010
From: UK
Posts: 3,805
Blog Entries: 1

If they inject too much it would debase the value.
Mangekyou is offline  
Old July 8th, 2012, 04:20 PM   #30

Ancientgeezer's Avatar
Revisionist
 
Joined: Nov 2011
From: Closer to Calais than to Birmingham
Posts: 3,447

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam-Nary View Post
While I think the Romans would have the technology and tactics to conquer India, I don't they had the men or would have the opportunity. While Trajan would defeat and conquer the Parthans, he only occupied Armenia and the Tigris/Eurphretes river basin to the Gulf of Mexico..
The Gulf of Mexico? That's really optmistic! The next thing will be the Legions deploying β XLVII Bombers!
Ancientgeezer is offline  
Reply

  Historum > Themes in History > Speculative History

Tags
119, hypothetical, india, invasion, operation, overlord, plan, roman


Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Operation Overlord: US vs Britain Partorgdunaev War and Military History 13 November 26th, 2011 10:21 AM
What if: American Invasion of Japan (Operation Downfall) ReaganSmash Speculative History 26 November 24th, 2011 01:33 PM
Roman Invasion of India Salah Speculative History 55 November 22nd, 2010 03:32 AM
Operation Overlord fails sturm Speculative History 11 November 2nd, 2010 09:00 AM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.