Byzantium Falls to Persia

Diamond

Banned
…One cannot, with any certainty, pinpoint the exact instant in which the Eastern Romans inevitably slid toward their doom. Internecine conflicts, wave after wave of assassinations and political cullings, exceptionally poor leadership, xenophobia and the breakdown of trade, increasing migrations of barbarians – all of these and more combined to seal the East’s fate.

Constantine the Great could hardly have guessed that less than three centuries after he made the sleepy fishing village of Byzantium his capital that the last of the great Roman states would be no more. Just as the Western Empire fell to Huns, Vandals, Goths, and other tribes that many Romans considered to be their inferiors, so too did the East fall.

The final defeat may have come in 603 AD at the hands of the Persians and their Avar allies, but for decades before that, the Empire existed as little more than a ghost of its former self. Gone were her possessions in Egypt, Anatolia, and the Balkans, leaving only parts of Greece and the great city of Constantinople itself, tenaciously holding onto a narrow strip of territory along the Aegean coast and in the southern Balkans.

On many occasions, it seemed as though a return to glory was at hand for the Empire. The emperor Justin thought to name his nephew Justinian as his heir, but for reasons still debated, this step was never taken. Who can say how the Empire might have flourished under Justinian? Little is known of him; after his suicide in 529, most official records pertaining to him seem to have been expunged.

We today think of the Eastern Romans as decadent and inbred shadows of the glory that once was Rome, but it need not have been thus…

Vater Pieter Harmann, Letters from a Germanic Priest to the Temple in Khusropolis
_________________________________

So what do you think Europe and the world in general might develop into if Byzantium fell to the Persians in the 7th century? In my narrative, I'm assuming a weaker overall Empire, with more disorganization, few great generals and leaders (no Justinian, etc.), so as to help give Persia a bigger boost. I'm assuming here too that the Vandals and Ostrogoths are still around in 603 AD (the date of TTL's fall of the Empire to the Persians and Avars).

I don't necessarily think that Persia would've survived too many centuries longer, but with a few decades between the fall of Byzantium and the rise of Islam, could Persia have held their own? Would Islam be just another strange Arabian desert sect? Would Zoroastrianism have spread amongst the Avars, and then into Germania and the north?
 

Hermanubis

Might see some Christian rebellions, if The Persian Empire doesn’t fall to the Muslims…
 
Last edited:

GBW

If Persia was master of the Near East, the only rival they could have had in Arabia would have been Axum, and Axum was never very active in the Hedjaz. Islam might be butterflied out of existance when Persia conquers the area. Zoroastrianism might eventually become the major religion of the Middle East, parts of North Africa and maybe some of the Balkans; Constantinople would definitely become a major trade center even under Persia with all the immigration of Persians that implies.
 

MerryPrankster

North Africa at this point was mostly Christian, although the Berbers had lots of pagans, Jews, etc. The only way Zoroastrianism could spread is if the Persians managed to establish themselves as overlords and kill off or forcibly convert all the Christians. That would be a tad bit difficult, I think. After all, Diocletion tried. :)

It seems to me that if Byzantium falls, North Africa would continue to be run by the Vandals (it was Justinian who defeated them, right?) or return to local control (the Exarchate, perhaps, or perhaps multiple little states). I don't think the Persians would be able to assert their control over all of Roman North Africa.

However, in TTL, the state-power trend in Christianity is likely to never come, or at the very least, be severely delayed. Christianity in TTL was the state faith for only a few centuries, and then suddenly no more Imperial favors or doctrine-enforcement.

BTW, the "Byzantium Falls to Persia" reminds me of my "Muslim Europe, Christian Middle East" TL. The POD for that was that Heraclius stays in North Africa, and the Avars and Persians take Constantinople.
 

Bulgaroktonos

Actually, with no Justinian, the Byzantines will be in a much better position. He ruined the Empire. His only worthwhile conquest was North Africa.

The only war that will conceivably topple Byzantium is the last war. Kill Heraclius and you will likely destroy the empire and it will fracture into its many parts, leaving an Empire in North Africa and in Italy.

Of course, this POD will also doom the Persians.....
 

Bulgaroktonos

MerryPrankster said:
What would an Avar-Persian conquest of Constantinople doom the Persians?
Click to expand...

The war was far too expensive. Even without Heraclius' campaign, Persia was nearly bankrupt. Besides, it wouldn't end with just that. You'd likely have the Exarchs of North Africa attempt some kind of counter-attack in Egypt.

The manpower losses would be unsustainable, the area too vast to defend against the coming Arabs......
 

MerryPrankster

It is true that there is a danger of the Persian Empire becoming overextended and running out of money.

However, if Constantinople falls to the Avars and Persians, Khosrau II will remain in power and the political chaos that preceded the fall of the Sassanians to Islam will not happen.

Hmmm...assuming the Avars take all of Greece and the Persians seize all of Asia Minor (and perhaps Constantinople too, considering the nomadic Avars might not want it), how can the Persians act in such a way to avoid being obliterated in a generation by the Arabs?

1. Can the new territories be organized quickly enough to serve as a tax base and replenish the Persians' coffers?

2. If the Persians adopt more enlightened attitudes towards the Monophysites than the Byzantines had, might the Monophysites become loyal to the Empire? That attitude could help them in Egypt too, either enabling them to swallow Egypt (again) or have an independent Egypt as an ally.

3. How effective would a counter-attack from the Italian or African Exarchates be?
 

Bulgaroktonos

Khosrau II might well fall anyway. Shahrbaraz might decide that he wants the throne.

Late Sassanian Persia was even more unstable than this period of Byzantine history. Khosrau II was a particular exception to the rule.

He was also a coward. And a bit crazy.....

Also, these provinces are devastated. If you read any of the stuff on the preceding wars, the Syria and eastern Turkey were ravaged. So numerous were the corpses, that Lions ate the corpses of the dead and developed a taste for human flesh. The reign of Kavadh was horrible to the Byzantines.

Either way, the regions are wastelands.

As for North Africa, it was North Africa that provided the manpower for Heraclius. His father is still alive, as is the apparently talented general known only as John and Heraclius' brother Theodore. The Exarchate of Carthage might well be able to launch successful attacks against Egypt.
 
Last edited:

Cloudy Vortex

Hmm... It never occured to me how bad the Perso-Byzantine World War was. I knew it wiped out Persia's ability to fight and nigh on did the same to Byzantium; I didn't regester regional depopulation. The anihilation and disposession of Aramaic volk from the fertile crescent can alone describe how Arabs, as an ethnic group, became the majority in Mesopotamia and Syria. Of coarse, Arabian penetration began long before all this.
 

Bulgaroktonos

IIRC, Arabian infliltration was primarily on the outskirts. Byzantium and Persia made it a very important strategic goal to control the bordering groups to prevent raids into their own territory. Arabs were there, but not in large numbers.

As to the depopulation of the whole area.....Not only did the lions eat travellers, but if I remember correctly, several cities had so few men that they had to be abandoned because their populations collapsed.

Imagine fighting the ancient equivalent of total war for over two hundred years.....
 

chunkeymonkey13q

The Eastern Roman Empire and the Sassanid Persians did indeed fight each other to a common ruin, although for this timeline as in ours I doubt the Persians would attempt to annex the Byzantine Empire, or even a section of it. The people of A.D. 500 knew just as well as we do today that bringing hundreds of thousands of hostile citizens into your empire is never a good idea and so perhaps they would have just sacked the Roman cities, carrying their treasures and slaves off too Persia.
 

Nicole

I think they may have taken a good chunk of Byzantium... Perhaps Palestine and Egypt, which were ruled by Persia in the distant past at times anyway. If I recall, the Sassanids at this time were tolerant of Christianity, which would be a change for the Monophysite populace of these regions (Byzantine Intolerance for their fellow Christians got bad enough that many Palestinians and Egyptians refused to fight for Byzantium once the Arabs came in)
 

chunkeymonkey13q

Hmm, I don’t think the Sassanids were exactly what we would consider to be tolerant, as the martyred thousands possibly even tens of thousands of Christians (one of the main reasons there was such a large amount of tension with the Eastern Roman Empire). As for their expansion, they would take as much as they could handle while still making gains. In most cases, this would probably involve more sacking and pillaging then occupying and sheltering.
 

Nicole

chunkeymonkey13q said:
Hmm, I don’t think the Sassanids were exactly what we would consider to be tolerant, as the martyred thousands possibly even tens of thousands of Christians (one of the main reasons there was such a large amount of tension with the Eastern Roman Empire). As for their expansion, they would take as much as they could handle while still making gains. In most cases, this would probably involve more sacking and pillaging then occupying and sheltering.
Click to expand...
Note that these are the late Sassanids... I believe an earlier thread of mine where I proposed a scenario where the Sassanids take Egypt and Palestine (occupied during the war) after a different Emperor takes control and a compromise peace, Leo posted this:
Leo Caesius said:
Subsequently the Sassanids saw the value of tolerating Christians within their borders, so long as the Christians behaved themselves (one of them, St. Aphrahat, called "the Persian Sage", was martyred after deliberately defiling a fire temple. The Persians wanted to lynch him, but the judge made every effort to grant him clemency, going so far as to offer him an unconditional pardon if he would only admit that he was wrong. Ultimately Aphrahat refused to apologize for his actions, and so the judge was forced to condemn him to death. This is all in his Syriac martyrology, written in Edessa - outside of the Persian empire - and not in any Persian accounts. Apparently the Syrian author found Aphrahat's behavior praiseworthy). They became a place of refuge for monophysites and Nestorians...
Click to expand...
( https://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?t=14835 )
 

chunkeymonkey13q

Yeah, you're right, they were more tolerant later on.

Hmm, yes the later Sassanids do seem to have been more tolerant of Christians than the earlier Sassanids although from what I've read they were still not quiet tolerant (on average). Not only did they massacre Christians, whom it seemed they had a special place in their hearts for after the Roman Empire made Christianity its official religion, but they also persecuted each other (not that the Christians didn’t do this too, but still).
 

Nicole

Of course, the Byzantines also massacred the Monophysite Christians of Palestine and Egypt during this period, so trading one massacrer for another...
 

chunkeymonkey13q

The Byzantines (and later Christians too) were definitely just as bad if not much worse, but it's mostly Persia that counts for this timeline. If Byzantium were to fall earlier, chances are that Europe and civilization in general would have developed much more slowly, as the Byzantines preserved much of the stored knowledge of the classical world that had been lost everywhere else.
 

MerryPrankster

chunkeymonkey13q said:
The Byzantines (and later Christians too) were definitely just as bad if not much worse, but it's mostly Persia that counts for this timeline. If Byzantium were to fall earlier, chances are that Europe and civilization in general would have developed much more slowly, as the Byzantines preserved much of the stored knowledge of the classical world that had been lost everywhere else.
Click to expand...

Might the Persians collect lots of classical knowledge and the like? If they can take Constantinople without damaging the city too much, libraries might survive intact.
 

Chingo360

I think that kind of empire would eventually just fall apart, the persian influence on the eastern roman empire would be its final doom, it might break up and be absorbed by smaller states surrounding it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top