Hard call really,
Parthia was no green and easy pasture. Rough country filled with some very skilled fighters that had shown themselves more then capable of making fools of some very important Romans.
But Caesar was the man. Adaptive, cunning, brilliant, and now at the head of the whole of the Roman Empire. That’s a hell of a combination. And it’s not like every battle between Parthians and Romans ended up like Carrhae. Bassus (trained by Cesar BTW) did alright against them, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_ ... cian_Gateshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Mount_Gindarus
I’d say, Caesar, in his prime, with a good army, and clean supply lines could have taken the Parthians.
But there’s the rub. I’m not so sure Caesar was in his prime anymore. He was in his 50’s, and had led a hard life. I’ve read that he was pretty ill at the end; suffering from seizures and malaria. Hard to say how he’d have faired on campaign in terrain like Armenia or Parthia. Might have been able to keep it together, might have been able to rely on his subordinates, hard to say for certain.
Always had a picture in my head that he might have wanted to die on campaign; hero’s death, leave a legend & all that. Parthia might have been a good place for it.
But then again the man was nothing if not ambitious, and conquering Parthia where his rival Crassus had failed would have been a hell of feather in his cap. Maybe he thought he could go on forever
In the end I fall on the side of saying he probably could have taken the Parthians, but it might have gotten messy. Don’t know if he could have held it. That would have depended on the situation in Rome, and how successful he was at calming things down there. If he could spare the time & troops, or just said screw it & done another genocide like he’d done in Gaul, they could have held on. But if the situation in Rome had gotten out of hand (and I think it would have) the locals at the periphery would have used the distraction to drive out the occupiers again.