Sassanid Empire conquer Egypt and Syria.
- Thread starter Thane
- Start date
Conquer? I'd say easily. After the battle of Edessa in 260 AD, I've always been under the impression that there was virtually no Roman armies in the East to stop them from taking Egypt and Syria. OTL they were stopped by the Palmyrene army and Odenathus but butterfly that away and the Persians should be able to take Egypt and Syria.
I don't know about hold though.
I don't know about hold though.
How much less weakened would Sassanids have to be to repel the Arab invasion?
I would say at the level of power the Sassanids were in about 300s-400s. The Sassanid empire before the war with Byzantium was still no match for the Rashidun, as they without initially fighting a strifed Byzantium who also had the Avars to deal with, no match for Byzantium. The Byzantines where perhaps the only in the area with the capacity to defeat the Rashidun, mainly because of the competence of Heraclius and its positioning. The Sassanids were in a woeful position and their army without the war with Byzantium decayed and fat. Once Iraq is lost and the Zagros crossed, Iran is easy pickings.
633 invasion of Mesopotamia was repelled.
What butterflies would it take for Sassanids to win at Qadisiyya in 636, and what would the effects be?
What butterflies would it take for Sassanids to win at Qadisiyya in 636, and what would the effects be?
Constantinople
Banned
I mean the DID for 20 years. It was clearly possible. If you have a similar situation for the 602-628 war but half a century earlier (strife in the ERE was...common
) I could see it lasting for awhile. Islam gets butterflied away too I guess. Overpopulation in Arabia is still going to be a problem, and that was really one of the main causes behind the spread of Islam...Yeah, the Sassanids were in a terrible position, actually. If you get them to rest for a bit, for whatever reason, like maybe they're preparing for a war against the Byzantines, but the emperor dies, so the preparations are delayed until, coincidentally, the Arabs come along.
The Sassanids prepared for the war with the Byzantines under Khosrau and even had the Avars as allies, yet still were bested even with all the cards in their hand. At this point in time, the Sassanids were quite weak compared to their early days. Even if prepared, as the Sassanids should've been, they would've been pushed back by the superior experience and generalship of the Arab armies who have been waging war in Arabia for at least a decade gaining phenomenal experience under fantastic generals and individual fighters like Ali ibn Talib. The Sassanids had time to prepare and did, but where still routed and dismantled, just as they were against Heraclius who had logistical problems, the result with an enemy more fearsome than Byzantium and less logistic issues ended in the complete dissolution and destruction of the Sassanid state.
This is a clear issue and fact. The Sassanids had years in advance to prepare and did, yet were defeated while the Rashidun looked at Byzantium. The early Sassanids are a different matter, but the Sassanids of the 600s where not what they used to be and not in position to transition into the new era.
An interesting question is which is more impressive, Heraclius fighting off the Avars-Sassanids or the same against the Caliphate. Very interesting.