RomanItaly Posted August 20, 2004 Report Share Posted August 20, 2004 Assuming that a rebellion hadn't forced Trajan to withdraw from attacking Parthia, could he have attacked India after rolling through Parthia? Could he have totally annahilated Parthia? Also, how deep into Parthia did he go in before Parthia surrendered? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Primus Pilus Posted August 21, 2004 Report Share Posted August 21, 2004 If anyone could have, it would've been Trajan, but even if he had been able to, the success would've been short lived. After his death, even much of the Dacian conquest was given up, so eastern additions would certainly not have lasted. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spurius Posted August 21, 2004 Report Share Posted August 21, 2004 Well, when Trajan attacked the Parthians in 113, he was 60 years old. When he stopped almost four years later he was a sick old man who didn't even make it back to Rome. Just based on that, if he had buzzed through Parthia with no problems and held it with no rebellion Trajan still would have been far too old to attack India. He still had a fair chunk of land to go through to get to India and the native peoples have been known since ancient times to be implacable foes while an invader was in their homeland. I say Trajan couldn't have invaded India since his manpower, money, resources and health were against it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Valens Posted August 21, 2004 Report Share Posted August 21, 2004 I would say he could not have invaded India. His supply lines would've been stretched too far, making them easy tragets for the Ligh Cavalry of Parthia. Not to mention that he would surely face the problem that Alexander had in India, troop weariness. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Viggen Posted September 1, 2004 Report Share Posted September 1, 2004 I believe attacking is one thing, taking control another and to keep the area over a longer period even a more difficult task. In my opinion India was just too far away and for logistical reasons it would have been a bad idea... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
journaldan Posted September 1, 2004 Report Share Posted September 1, 2004 Of course he could have. The question is, would he have been successful? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Primus Pilus Posted September 1, 2004 Report Share Posted September 1, 2004 It certainly would've been a logistics nightmare. And the potential for disaster in the west while the emperor was gallavanting around the far east certainly would've been an issue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crag Posted September 4, 2004 Report Share Posted September 4, 2004 As written it all depends on your definition of "Attack". Is a small troop poking their roman noses south of the hindu kush considered an attack? However I feel safe in saying the chances of the romans invading and retaining India as part of the Empire to be next to nil. Although nothing is impossible. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.