Ideas for Sassanian Victory TL

[Mirza Khan]

I'm thinking of doing a TL in which the Sassanids win the Sassanid/Byzantine war of 602-626. The POD will be the Battle of Issus, (a Byzantine Victory in 622 which turned the tide of the war-before that the Sassanids had been extremely successful, seizing Egypt, Syria, and Anatolia). In this TL, the Sassanids win the battle and kill Emperor Heraclius on the battlefield. The Byzantine exarchates in North Africa and Italy break away, and the remnants of the empire are divided between the Avars and the Sassanids.

The Sassanids then defeat the Islamic advance into the Middle East and take Mecca. After this, they recruit Arab settlers to repopulate the Middle East (devestated by the war) and Arab cavalry to serve against the Goturks and their other enemies. The Sassanid Empire enters a golden age that lasts for about 400 years and sees significant advances in science, math, astronomy, and philosophy. Eventually, the Empire breaks up into successor states, which are edestroyed by the Turks around 1000.

Thoughts? Ideas? I'm wondering exactly how well Zorastrianism would do in this TL, how the mideast would do under Sassanid rule, and the exact effects on western European politics.

I probably won't do this for several months (I have a couple other TLs I need to work on), but I wanted to get my ideas sorted out before I start writing.

[Solitarius Valentinus]

A couple of nitpicks, if you don't mind. Given that the emperor himself is killed in battle and the army defeated. I still can't see though how this will manage to help the Avar/ Sassanid joint siege of Byzantium itself.

But already, continuing with your timeline for now. Secondly, one of the major reasons as to why the Arabian armies were spreading was also because there were quite a number of muslims in other empires who were more than willing to fight for their religion.

This would also mean Zoroastrianism would quite likely be pushed back daily by the Islamic religion. Also, given that the Christian Byzantines are pushed back, Christianity will be able to spread freely. Unless you will have the Sassanids execute muslims/ christians... or change the religions into something they are not.

Finally, the Turks.

Eventually, the Empire breaks up into successor states, which are edestroyed by the Turks around 1000.

How can you be so certain that the Turks would still rise? And even if they did, how can you be so certain they would still be as succesful or even respond the same way? With a POD of almost 400 years before the rise of the Seljuq Dynasty, being a true threat, aside from pesky Avars, you could quite easily say the butterflies will have an effect a la The Butterfly Effect.

Still, with that nitpicking out of the way I am quite curious as to how you will do this. Best of luck to you.

[DuQuense]

Location of the Battle -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Issus_(town)

The Sassanids then defeat the Islamic advance into the Middle East and take Mecca

NOT. You can't march a 7th century army 1,000 miles across the desert, with Religious fanatic desert Tribesmen attacking your supply train every step of the way.

The Byzantine exarchates in North Africa and Italy break away, and the remnants of the empire are divided between the Avars and the Sassanids.

Unless the Sassanids [or Avars] take Constantinople, I don't see the total collapse of Byzantine, and if either takes it, they will have a new empire based from Constantinople.

[Philip]

Originally Posted by Mirza Khan

I'm thinking of doing a TL in which the Sassanids win the Sassanid/Byzantine war of 602-626. The POD will be the Battle of Issus, (a Byzantine Victory in 622 which turned the tide of the war-before that the Sassanids had been extremely successful, seizing Egypt, Syria, and Anatolia). In this TL, the Sassanids win the battle and kill Emperor Heraclius on the battlefield.

Okay so far.

The Byzantine exarchates in North Africa and Italy break away, and the remnants of the empire are divided between the Avars and the Sassanids.

I don't buy this unless someone takes Constantinople. You are better off having the Romans survive, but in a state of chaos -- something like the Sassanids were in after the war OTL. A series of coups and assassinations. That sort of thing. Give the Sassanids Armenia, Syria, Palestine, and Egypt. Adding in all of Anatolia is likely to cause too many headaches for the Sassanids at this point. Wait until another war or two to finish the Romans off.

Complete defeat and dissolution of the Romans at this point stretches credibility.

The Sassanids then defeat the Islamic advance into the Middle East and take Mecca.

Here is my suggestion: Have the Sassanids defeat al-Walid at Mu'tah rather than the the Romans fighting to a draw IOTL.

As per OTL, have Mohammed plan a retalitory campaign for 632. Have Abu Bakr press forward, siting the war as the last command of the Prophet. The Sassanids, having fully recovered after a decade of peace with whats left of Rome, win a decisive victory under Shahtbaraz[1]. FtSoA, say it happens at Tabuk. As ibn Zayd feared in OTL, the various tribes revolt and apostisize. Without the army that was crushed at Tabuk, Medina falls, and Abu Bakr is killed. Meanwhile, the Sassanids support their vassals in southern Arabia. The Ridda wars go poorly, and Islam remains a small sect that never achieves the unification of Arabia.

After this, they recruit Arab settlers to repopulate the Middle East (devestated by the war) and Arab cavalry to serve against the Goturks and their other enemies.

I find it more likely that they would import peoples from the conquered Roman provinces.

I'm wondering exactly how well Zorastrianism would do in this TL, how the mideast would do under Sassanid rule,

Depends on what the Sassanids do. If they try to force it on the Christians, you will probably see a raproachment between the Christian sects followed by resistance. If they leave the Christians alone, I suspect that there would be a slow conversion beginning with the elite.

You also need to watch for Zoroastrian heresies. Manichaeism, Zurvanism, and Mazdakism had all recently disrupted the Zoroastrian faith. IIRC, Zurvanism was still an issue.



======
[1]Without Heraclius, you should be able to keep Shahtbaraz and Khosrau II on good terms.

[Faeelin]

I actually think Zoroastrianism was on the way out. There were more and more noble families converting to Christianity, and Zoroastrianism didn't allow converts.

[Philip]

Originally Posted by Faeelin

Zoroastrianism didn't allow converts.

It certainly did before the rise of Islam.

[Kalan]

Originally Posted by Faeelin

I actually think Zoroastrianism was on the way out. There were more and more noble families converting to Christianity, and Zoroastrianism didn't allow converts.

Zoroastrianism does allow converts. The parse (Zoroastrians in India) don't, but the Sassanids were quite eager to proselytize. In conquered areas they built temples of fire to promote their religion, and Zoroastrianism spread to along the silk road to China even without conquest, so conversion certainly did happen.

[Mirza Khan]

Originally Posted by Philip

Okay so far.

I don't buy this unless someone takes Constantinople. You are better off having the Romans survive, but in a state of chaos -- something like the Sassanids were in after the war OTL. A series of coups and assassinations. That sort of thing. Give the Sassanids Armenia, Syria, Palestine, and Egypt. Adding in all of Anatolia is likely to cause too many headaches for the Sassanids at this point. Wait until another war or two to finish the Romans off.

Complete defeat and dissolution of the Romans at this point stretches credibility.

Didn't the Exarchate of Carthage try to break off in the 640's under Gregory the Patrician? I just don't see the Romans holding onto it after suffering such a massive defeat. And hadn't the Sassanids basically occupied all of Anatolia before the battle of Issus (my POD)?

I was going to have an Avar-Sassanian partition of the Byzantines (Sassanids get Egypt and all of the Byzantine possessions in Asia, including Anatolia. Avars get everything in the Balkans. Italy and North Africa are independent). But maybe I can have it happen over the course of two or three wars instead of just one.

Here is my suggestion: Have the Sassanids defeat al-Walid at Mu'tah rather than the the Romans fighting to a draw IOTL.

As per OTL, have Mohammed plan a retalitory campaign for 632. Have Abu Bakr press forward, siting the war as the last command of the Prophet. The Sassanids, having fully recovered after a decade of peace with whats left of Rome, win a decisive victory under Shahtbaraz[1]. FtSoA, say it happens at Tabuk. As ibn Zayd feared in OTL, the various tribes revolt and apostisize. Without the army that was crushed at Tabuk, Medina falls, and Abu Bakr is killed. Meanwhile, the Sassanids support their vassals in southern Arabia. The Ridda wars go poorly, and Islam remains a small sect that never achieves the unification of Arabia.

Makes sense

I find it more likely that they would import peoples from the conquered Roman provinces.

Well, IIRC the Middle East was pretty devasted after the Byzantine Persian war, and their had been Arab migration into Syria and Mesopotamia for centuries. I just have the Sassanids control and direct it.

Depends on what the Sassanids do. If they try to force it on the Christians, you will probably see a raproachment between the Christian sects followed by resistance. If they leave the Christians alone, I suspect that there would be a slow conversion beginning with the elite.

You also need to watch for Zoroastrian heresies. Manichaeism, Zurvanism, and Mazdakism had all recently disrupted the Zoroastrian faith. IIRC, Zurvanism was still an issue.

I'll need to do some more research before I write this, but I seem to remember reading that Zorastrianism was much more an ethnic religion than Christianity or Islam, and only spread with the adaptation of Persian culture as a whole. Do you think this would be a fair characterization?

[Philip]

Originally Posted by Mirza Khan

Didn't the Exarchate of Carthage try to break off in the 640's under Gregory the Patrician?

For religious reasons, yes. However, that was not my objection. I don't see the Empire being divided between the Avars and Sassanids unless Constantinople falls.

Well, IIRC the Middle East was pretty devasted after the Byzantine Persian war, and their had been Arab migration into Syria and Mesopotamia for centuries. I just have the Sassanids control and direct it.

Much of this destruction will be averted by preventing Heraclius's assault on Mesopotamia.

I'll need to do some more research before I write this, but I seem to remember reading that Zorastrianism was much more an ethnic religion than Christianity or Islam, and only spread with the adaptation of Persian culture as a whole. Do you think this would be a fair characterization?

Yes and no. It is also fair to say that Zoroastrianism was (at least as it was expressed at the time) tied to the Persian world-view. I think it might be fair to say that Zoroastrianism was used as a method of 'Persianizing' an area. However, it did spread beyond the Persian lands. For example, Zoroastrianism had a strong presence in Armenia, but they weren't Persian culturally. (I'll try to say more about this later -- there is something I want to look up first.)

It may be that this changed post-Islam. The conquest of Persia greatly affected Zoroastrianism, largely turning the religion in on itself.

I forget to mention this earlier -- Christianity within the empire will be interesting. The Sassanids will pick up large numbers of Miaphysites in Egypt and Syria. If they take Anatolia, they will have many Chalcedonians as well. This is likely to create some conflict with the Nestorians that were previously favored by the Sassanids. I also wonder what will happen without the threat of the Roman Empire. Much of Sassanid policy on Christianity was influnenced by the fact that Christianity (Chalcedonianism in particular) was the state religion of Rome.

[Nikephoros]

Originally Posted by Kalan

Zoroastrianism does allow converts. The parse (Zoroastrians in India) don't, but the Sassanids were quite eager to proselytize. In conquered areas they built temples of fire to promote their religion, and Zoroastrianism spread to along the silk road to China even without conquest, so conversion certainly did happen.

True, but that doesn't change the fact that Christianity was making inroads into the Sassanid Empire. In the early planning for my timeline, Watch Along the Danube, I had intended for the Sassanid Empire to originally become Nestorian Christian. I since have scrapped that idea, but here we are.

Originally Posted by Mirza Khan

Didn't the Exarchate of Carthage try to break off in the 640's under Gregory the Patrician? I just don't see the Romans holding onto it after suffering such a massive defeat. And hadn't the Sassanids basically occupied all of Anatolia before the battle of Issus (my POD)?

They didn't occupy Anatolia. What they did was to drive straight for Constantinople. This is what kept them from being able to sieze the city. It will take more than one war to achieve actual control over Anatolia. Heraclius in OTL trained his army IN Anatolia, and had plenty of space between him and the closest Persian army at that time. When I get a chance to use my computer, I've got an account of Heraclius's campaign that gives a good idea of who was where.

I was going to have an Avar-Sassanian partition of the Byzantines (Sassanids get Egypt and all of the Byzantine possessions in Asia, including Anatolia. Avars get everything in the Balkans. Italy and North Africa are independent). But maybe I can have it happen over the course of two or three wars instead of just one.

Any war is still likely to have hurt the Sassanids enough to make it take more than one war. But that would also give the Romans breathing room.

Well, IIRC the Middle East was pretty devasted after the Byzantine Persian war, and their had been Arab migration into Syria and Mesopotamia for centuries. I just have the Sassanids control and direct it.

Certainly plausible. After all, that's what the Romans did in North Africa. The closest analogy I can think of is migrant workers from Mexico.

[Mirza Khan]

Originally Posted by Philip

For religious reasons, yes. However, that was not my objection. I don't see the Empire being divided between the Avars and Sassanids unless Constantinople falls.

Sounds sensible-maybe they get finished off in several wars over the course of the 7th and 8th centuries?

Much of this destruction will be averted by preventing Heraclius's assault on Mesopotamia.

Well, I read a little bit of The Great Arab Conquests by Hugh Kennedy, and he said (don't have it in front of me so I can't remember where) that the Middle East, especially Syria, experienced a demographic decline for about a century before the Islamic conquests, and that Arab settlers had been trickling in for centuries (Palmyra, a Roman vassal in Syria, rebelled against Rome in the third century under an Arab queen, Zenobia). Hence, I have the Sassanids exploit the Arabs.[/QUOTE]

Yes and no. It is also fair to say that Zoroastrianism was (at least as it was expressed at the time) tied to the Persian world-view. I think it might be fair to say that Zoroastrianism was used as a method of 'Persianizing' an area. However, it did spread beyond the Persian lands. For example, Zoroastrianism had a strong presence in Armenia, but they weren't Persian culturally. (I'll try to say more about this later -- there is something I want to look up first.)

It may be that this changed post-Islam. The conquest of Persia greatly affected Zoroastrianism, largely turning the religion in on itself.

I forget to mention this earlier -- Christianity within the empire will be interesting. The Sassanids will pick up large numbers of Miaphysites in Egypt and Syria. If they take Anatolia, they will have many Chalcedonians as well. This is likely to create some conflict with the Nestorians that were previously favored by the Sassanids. I also wonder what will happen without the threat of the Roman Empire. Much of Sassanid policy on Christianity was influnenced by the fact that Christianity (Chalcedonianism in particular) was the state religion of Rome.

Originally Posted by Nikephoros

True, but that doesn't change the fact that Christianity was making inroads into the Sassanid Empire. In the early planning for my timeline, Watch Along the Danube, I had intended for the Sassanid Empire to originally become Nestorian Christian. I since have scrapped that idea, but here we are.

So do you think the Sassanids would be more tolerant of Christianity, especially the non-Chalcedonian varients? I doubt trying to impose Zorastrianism will go over well in Egypt and Syria, and they're not stupid. The bit about Nestorian Christianity is also interesting-do you think some or all of Persia might end up Nestorian after the Sassanids collapse?

They didn't occupy Anatolia. What they did was to drive straight for Constantinople. This is what kept them from being able to sieze the city. It will take more than one war to achieve actual control over Anatolia. Heraclius in OTL trained his army IN Anatolia, and had plenty of space between him and the closest Persian army at that time. When I get a chance to use my computer, I've got an account of Heraclius's campaign that gives a good idea of who was where.

That would be really helpful-I've been having a hard time finding a good account of the war.
[/QUOTE]

[Philip]

Originally Posted by Mirza Khan

Sounds sensible-maybe they get finished off in several wars over the course of the 7th and 8th centuries?

This is certainly possible. I am often impressed that they did survive.

So do you think the Sassanids would be more tolerant of Christianity, especially the non-Chalcedonian varients?

OTL, they certainly were. I think it was due to the politics rather than the theology. Supporting Nestorianism made it less likely that the Christians subjects of the Sassanids look to Rome for help. The Nestorian leaders reciprocated by being more compliant than the Chalcedonian leaders. (Google Synod of Beth Lapat.)

Removing Rome changes the politics, but I doubt the Sassanids will change their policies. There is no need to anger their subjects.

I doubt trying to impose Zorastrianism will go over well in Egypt and Syria, and they're not stupid.

Agreed. I could see something like the Ottoman millet system developing. I get the impression the Sassanids were moving this way OTL.

The bit about Nestorian Christianity is also interesting-do you think some or all of Persia might end up Nestorian after the Sassanids collapse?

Why are the Sassanids collapsing now?

[Mirza Khan]

Originally Posted by Philip

Why are the Sassanids collapsing now?

Well, inevitably they will. Granted, not for a long time-right now I'm planning on having them last until about AD 1000 or so. But the Turkic steppe is right next door to the north, and after looking at the Sassanid splendor for three or four centuries, its inhabitants might start getting ideas...but perhaps I'm getting ahead of myself.

Does anyone think that, with Miaphysite/Nestorian Christianity existing in a Zorastrian dominated state for several centuries, those religions might pick up some influences from Zorastrian theology?

Also, how numerous were the Avars? With their empire a going concern in this TL, might they leave a lasting cultural presence in the Balkans, or will they just be Hellanized/Slavicized?

[8Deer]

Also, how numerous were the Avars? With their empire a going concern in this TL, might they leave a lasting cultural presence in the Balkans, or will they just be Hellanized/Slavicized?

The Avars were just the ruling class of a very heterogenous group of people, including Germanic peoples like the Gepids, Turkic peoples like the Huns and Bulgars, Iranian peoples, and Slavs, who made up the majority of the population I believe.

So they will probably end up being Slavicized, but they may leave behind some minor linguistic or cultural traces.

[Nikephoros]

Originally Posted by Mirza Khan

Also, how numerous were the Avars? With their empire a going concern in this TL, might they leave a lasting cultural presence in the Balkans, or will they just be Hellanized/Slavicized?

Not sure, but IIRC, by far the vast majority of their army was Slavic tribesman. Their powerbase was on the Pannonian plain, but all things considered, the Magyars (Or their TTL equivalent) can take that from them.