How do you fix persia-niggers problem if you are the Roman Emperor?

Fighting a disorganized mass of Celtic polities is different than fighting an organized Parthian state. Stop sucking Caesar's cock.

> Fighting a disorganized mass of Celtic polities is different than fighting an organized Parthian state.

But Caesar also fought the eastern factions as well as other Roman armies.

For instance, he pwned an eastern force at the battle of Zela with ease and that army was supported by horse archers from Scythia.

He also destroyed the Ptolemaic army with ease at the battle of the Nile(47BC) as well as the Numidian+Roman army led by king Juba and the Optimates.

> disorganized mass of Celtic polities

Except the Celts being a disorganized mass is a meme, they were very well organized.

They were a loose confederation of tribes which were easy to move to the Roman side. They were not a massive unified state.

Marry the shah's daughter, secure a trade partnership between both empires as well as military cooperation, turn Armenia into a jointly ruled state with a mixed army or just carve it up for good, build canals and better infrastructure north of the Syrian desert for ease of access and trade, profit.

>At least use a map of the Sassanids.
Sassanids were Parthians too

But Pompey, and his veteran legionaries and Optimate lapdogs were, and they had Caesar outmanned and outmaneuvered and he still pulled victory out of his ass.

And let's not forget what he did to Egypt, either.

There's a reason why very powerful and important people have been sucking Caesar's cock for as long as western civilization has been around. Caesar was a rare genius who could find ways to succeed even against the longest odds.

Pompey and the Optimates were the definition of disunited. Pompey himself performed very poorly during the civil war, missing the chance to nail Caesar to the wall on multiple occasions.

But to be clear here, I'm not taking Caesar's genius away from him. I'm saying that he cannot play the Parthians against each other like he did the Gauls, and that he lacks the capacity to make long term gains against them.

The Iranian plateau is beyond his operational range, and without defeating them there he cannot secure Mesopotamia from a Parthian counterattack. There's a reason Trajan's conquests were untenable. Had they not been Hadrian would have continued them and fucked the Parthians with a power drill. Caesar cannot achieve what a hundred years of peak Roman aggression could not.

> I'm saying that he cannot play the Parthians against each other like he did the Gauls, and that he lacks the capacity to make long term gains against them.

You do realize that this is exactly what Augustus did to the Parthians?

He just sent a seductress to the court of Phraates IV and she fucked up the court so bad that Phraates submitted to Augustus without further war, sent him the standards captured at Carrhae and also sent five of his own sons to Augustus as hostages.

Not to mention that just decades prior a full blown civil war with Roman support on the side of Mithridates III of Parthia was avoided only because of the Ptolemies.

Parthia was just as vulnerable to political manipulation.

> The Iranian plateau is beyond his operational range

It wasn't for Alexander coming all the way back from Macedonia, it sure as hell would not be for Caesar launching far closer from Syria.

> There's a reason Trajan's conquests were untenable.

Because Parthia was much more stable and stronger then.

>Pompey himself performed very poorly during the civil war
Pompey was nobody's fool except Caesar's, and all of his legionaries were hardened veterans. Hindsight is always 20/20, and it's hard to overstate just how long of a shot Caesar had when he crossed the rubicon and essentially declared war on his own country.

>Caesar cannot achieve what a hundred years of peak Roman aggression could not.

But Roman expansionism didn't peak during Trajan, if anything Trajan was at the tail end of a period of consolidation and diminishing returns. Caesar, however, was at the tail end of it's primary expansion period which started with the second punic war and the acquisition of Iberia, North Africa, Greece, Asia Minor, and the Levant. If any one person could have found success where Trajan couldn't, it would have been the guy who had defeated one of Rome's most relentless and ancient enemies, who defeated Greeks, Egyptians, other Romans, basically anybody who stood up to him. The secret to Caesar's success was his ability to play his opponents off of each other while keeping them guessing as to his motives, and the Parthians lacked the centralization that was so crucial to the success of the Achaemenids and Sassanids.

I know that it sounds like I'm sucking the Caesar cock, but there's a reason he's still a household name more than 2,000 years after he lived and died.

>If Christian
Good luck being assassinated every day.
Retard.

>You do realize that this is exactly what Augustus did to the Parthians?
Yeah, and Augustus was wise not to actually push the Parthians on it. Tiberius tried that, and achieved the Parthians uniting against his contender and kicking him out.

>It wasn't for Alexander coming all the way back from Macedonia, it sure as hell would not be for Caesar launching far closer from Syria.
Alexander defeated the Persian empire before ever setting foot out of Mesopotamia. That obviously could not work against the Parthians given that the Romans pillaged Mesopotamia and Ctesiphon on numerous occasions. Caesar, wrestling with a still hostile Senate, could not have projected power as much as emperors in times of perfect stability could have.

>Because Parthia was much more stable and stronger then.
The Roman-Parthian conflict went on for three centuries. They weren't always stable and strong.

>Pompey was nobody's fool except Caesar's
Pompey defeated Caesar in battle and refused to press the advantage because he couldn't believe his soldiers could have defeated Caesar's. He was forced to face Caesar by the Senators in a way he didn't want and his lieutenants didn't talk to each other. Again, not to take away from Caesar's genius, but the civil war was Pompey's to lose.

>But Roman expansionism didn't peak during Trajan, if anything Trajan was at the tail end of a period of consolidation and diminishing returns.
The Romans didn't stop expanding because they didn't like it anymore. They stopped because they were running out of valuable places they could conquer. Had they had the power to push further into Parthia, they most certainly would have.

> Yeah, and Augustus was wise not to actually push the Parthians on it.

Dude, he basically humiliated them as a faction by simply harem mindfucking their king, he had no need to push them.

> Tiberius tried that, and achieved the Parthians uniting against his contender and kicking him ou

As I've said, Parthia then was much more powerful and better organized than in the 1st century BC.

> Caesar, wrestling with a still hostile Senate

But there was only conspiratorial resistance by 44 BC, in fact, Caesar would be far safer far away from Rome.

There were no other armies except Caesars with the Romans and everyone with the ability to raise one was already dead or defeated.

> The Roman-Parthian conflict went on for three centuries. They weren't always stable and strong.

They were always stronger during the Roman Imperial period than during the 1st century BC.

sack the fuck out of Mesopotamia, invade the interior and continue sacking