Rome vs. Parthia, essay help?

[Nihonius Legio]

Hey all, I have one more paper to write this semester and was hoping you might be able to help me out again. I'm thinking of writing an essay on why Roman campaigns against Parthia/Persia generally failed. As I understand it so far, both parties tended to be at war off and on for centuries and neither was able to gain much on the other (correct me if I'm wrong). I've read some of Ammianus Marcellinus' descriptions of the Persians briefly some time ago, but I hope you guys might be able to point me in the direction of some other good sources as well, including archaelogical. I'd like to know as much as possible about traits of the Persian army (I know they loved their archers)and anything that might have made them exceptional at withstanding the Romans.
Thanks!

[Jona Lendering]

It was an asymmetrical war, but the Roman campaigns were usually succesful. Marc Antony conquered Armenia; it is only in Augustan propaganda that his victories were presented as something minor. Ever since, Rome was generally more or less successful, in the end destroying the credibility of the Arsacids and creating the conditions of the rise of the Sasanians.

[Nihonius Legio]

But the Romans obviously never took all of Persia (as far as I know). So was it just in the late empire that Rome was getting more beat up by them? Wasn't it emperor Julian that tried to take them on, but ended up getting himself killed in the process?
My Roman Hist teacher never seemed to disagree with me when I mentioned this topic to him...

[Robert Vermaat]

But the Romans obviously never took all of Persia (as far as I know). So was it just in the late empire that Rome was getting more beat up by them? Wasn't it emperor Julian that tried to take them on, but ended up getting himself killed in the process?
My Roman Hist teacher never seemed to disagree with me when I mentioned this topic to him...

First of all, never trust what history teachers seem to think. I've encountered too many of them (including those who wrote the schoolbooks) harboring the most crazy notions about history, Roman history included.

You're looking at it from a wrong angle: a Roman campaign could be very successful without conquering the Persian Empire in full. Even occupying the capital for a longer time was, in my opinion, never a strategic aim for the Romans. By far the most of the wars between Rome and the Parthians and Persians was about the control of
a) Armenia and
b) Northern Syria
By far the most conflicts were fought to that end, and the same of course goes for the Eastern opponents: they never tried to conquer the entire Roman Empire either. By looking at it this way, you could of course say that the Persians and Parthians against Rome generally failed as well. But of course that's wrong, too.

To judge whether a Roman campaign was successful, you need to look at each campaign: why did it start, what was gained or lost, what was the result. You'll find that in most cases, territorial loss or a political conflict was the reason. Most of the time, Armenia was the cause of the trouble, either the Romans attempting to gain political leverage, or losing it. I think Rome was more aggressive there, but the Sassanids were very protective in that area as well. Another reason could be a Roman ruler (emperor or local governor) trying to gain glory by achieving a victory in the East (emulating Alexander without planning a real lasting conquest). We see some of that with the Persians too, the Parthians were never bent on conquest that much. But where the Romans stood in front of the gates of the capitals of Parthia or Persia a good number of times, Rome was of course never attacked by the opposite side. Only Constantinople was once besieged by the Persians (in 626 AD) - but even then the enemy never even reached the walls, but stood on the opposite banks of the Bosporus, leaving the actual siege to the Avars.

Another thing to look at is how the conflicts ended. After a number of battles, usually the parties came to an agreement involving the loss of a number of cities, and/or the payment of a certain sum of gold. Looking at the region over the period of 7 centuries, we see that the borders swung back and forward, but hardly changed. Neither side achieved lasting victory. However, the Romans survived when the Sassanid Empire eventually crumbled under the attacks of Islam during the mid-7th century. Only when that happened did the Romans lose the Syrian territory which they had fought over for such a long time.

So in general, I would say that you could not possibly conclude that the Roman campaigns 'generally failed' in the East.

[ValentinianVictrix]

Anyone interested in this area really needs to read the following-

'Blood in the Sand- Rome's Wars in Parthia' Rose Mary Sheldon

[Nathan Ross]

Marc Antony conquered Armenia; it is only in Augustan propaganda that his victories were presented as something minor.

I think Armenia was a Roman ally at the time! Accounting for propaganda is always difficult, but I'd say the loss of his siege train and retreat from Phraaspa were fairly serious defeats... The real victory was in Syria a few years earlier, under Antony's general Ventidius Bassus - first man to be given a triumph for a Parthian war, I believe.

Anyone interested in this area really needs to read the following-
'Blood in the Sand- Rome's Wars in Parthia' Rose Mary Sheldon

It's good then, is it? I started a post on it in the review section here about a year back - it seemed from the blurb a bit iffy, but some others thought more highly of it. Still haven't got round to reading it myself though!

[Nihonius Legio]

Hmmm, it seems then that I'll have to either change my topic or write about why the Romans and Persians fought so many wars at all. Thanks for clearing that up for me. If you hadn't I'd probably have expended alot of time and energy myself before finding out for myself.
My backup idea was why the Romans eventually gave up on holding most of Germany. Does this sound like a good topic? My teacher thought it might turn out to be too expansive of a topic, but I'm not sure...

[Jona Lendering]

Hmmm, it seems then that I'll have to either change my topic or write about why the Romans and Persians fought so many wars at all.

You may consider another question: "What were the war aims, and to what extent were they achieved?"

why the Romans eventually gave up on holding most of Germany.

Good question, but complex. Even modern historians repeat hoaxes like "the Romans tried to take the Elbe as border" (no evidence), "the Romans could give up Germany because it was poor" (that's what Tacitus says, but it is untrue). I have noticed another problem here.

[Nihonius Legio]

So where was that lead bar actually found, and how does "TEC" point to a particular mine? Is it an abreviation for a known mine on the east bank?
I believe my Roman teacher also told me about the Romans trying to establish the Elbe as a border, not sure how (if at all) he tried to back that up. If there's no evidence, I wonder where that theory came from at all then!
Sounds like I need to do some more thinking as to what topic to choose. Wish I had more time to decide!
Thanks for that article Jona, pretty interesting topic. I wouldn't be too surprised if the Romans did adopt a gradual approach to withdrawal from the area.

[Jona Lendering]

So where was that lead bar actually found, and how does "TEC" point to a particular mine?

No one knows where the lead bar was found. It was bought by the museum. The authenticity is uncontested.

I wouldn't be too surprised if the Romans did adopt a gradual approach to withdrawal from the area.

Personally, I am increasingly convinced that the Claudian Army Reforms were decisive.

[Robert Vermaat]

Hi Jared,
if you're continuing with an essay on Rome and Germania, please continue in another thread in this section.

[Gaius Colletti]

It was an asymmetrical war, but the Roman campaigns were usually succesful. Marc Antony conquered Armenia; it is only in Augustan propaganda that his victories were presented as something minor. Ever since, Rome was generally more or less successful, in the end destroying the credibility of the Arsacids and creating the conditions of the rise of the Sasanians.

Actually I recall from reading Anthony Everitt's "Augustus" that Antony was going to war with Parthia, and lost a considerable amount of men, and ended up taking Armenia as result, but Armenia was already under considerable Roman influence and little was really gained by this

[Nihonius Legio]

Hi Jared,
if you're continuing with an essay on Rome and Germania, please continue in another thread in this section.

I'm actually not totally sure what my topic is going to be yet. Based on all your knowledge of the subject, which tells me the Romans were actually pretty successful in their Eastern campaigns, I may actually just write an essay which (hopefully) verifies this. Not sure if I can get 15 pages out of that, but I'm still thinking.
My paper on the Roman use of fear turned out great. It's an interesting topic spanning a great deal of time and space. Sadly, an essay that argues that the Romans generally fulfilled their campaign goals just seems a little less lustrous to me. So I'd still like to think this over a bit, and maybe get inspirired toward some amazing topic or other...

[Gaius Colletti]

Also take into consideration what exactly do you consider a victory. Trajan quickly captured several territories from Parthia, but had a very hard time holding on to them, and died before total dominition