Khosrau the Victorious

[Tetsu]

Khosrau II was the Shah of the Sassanian Persian Empire from 590 AD until his death in 628. His death, a murder that occured in chaos and anarchy, marked the conclusion of a war with Rome that had been raging for decades. The Persians had conquered Syria, Palestine, Egypt and most of Asia Minor, and the war had been a slow reclaiming of territory for the Romans. In 627, at the Battle of Nineveh, Heraclius and his Roman army acheived a descisive victory over the Persians, and advanced towards the Sassanian capital of Ctesiphon. The war was a victory for Heralcius; Rome regained all of its lost lands, and the high status of the Persian Empire fell into darkness. The death of Khosrau II led to a long chain of horrible rulers, pretenders, and child kings that eventually caused the downfall of Persia at the hands of the Ummayad Caliphate.

What if the outcome at Nineveh had been reversed, or at least a draw? A Persian victory, or stalemate, could have halted the Romans in their tracks. The Persians were not without good leadership; General Rhahzadh, the Persian commander, was in no way a poor leader. The battle itself was incredibly contested, and well over 100,000 men fought each other. Heraclius won the day after Rhahzadh was killed. Could a victory have been achieved if Rhahzadh had not died? Let's assume it does.

This leaves Khosrau in a curious position. The Roman army is still in Mesopotamia, but Heraclius will need time to regroup. There is a good chance that the Romans will still triumph, so Khosrau is persuaded to make peace with Heraclius. The war ends with Rome in a more favorable position (all lost lands have been returned), but Persia is also much better off with a capable ruler still at the helm. Upon Heraclius' return to Constantinople, Khosrau begins to restrengthen his empire.

Peace, for now, has been achieved between the rivals of Rome and Persia; however, a powerful enemy is slowly forming in the peninsula to the south...

[Bulgaroktonos]

I don't see Khosrau making peace. This is more than just a war over land. This is perhaps the first "crusade." I have the book upstairs, but I'm being lazy, and in it a very interesting argument is made that Heraclius used an entirely new form of propaganda by portraying the war as one of Good versus Evil, God versus Satan, and that is all that kept the Romans from collapsing with the Avars outside Constantinople on one side and Shar-Baraz on the other.

The Persians have burned the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, and Heraclius has burned the birth-place of Zoroaster and defiled the holy lake. This is a fight to the finish. If Heraclius is resoundingly defeated, he may well suffer the same fate as Julian, and die in a far off land, stranding his shattered army and abandoning his Empire to civil war.

If Heraclius manages to extract himself, then we may see a longer version of the war, likely with a Roman victory anyway, as Persia is by this time exhausted. I view Nineveh as the decisive battle simply because it sped up the process. Persia might be able to hold on for a few more years, but the Byzantines will return (providing Heraclius survives).

If not, it depends on what happens. If Heraclius' generals stay loyal to his family, perhaps Theodore as regent, then we might see a temporary lull in the war, but before long, its likely the Byzantines will send John (no last name, just known as John), perhaps their most capable general, to attack Persia again, with Theodore as well, I still see a Byzantine victory, simply because by this time, the Persians are simply too beaten. Khosrau has started to isolate his family members, and if it continues, or the Byzantines start to get the upper hand again, he might well be out in favor of Kavak.

Either way, the Arabs run rampant over the exhausted empires, unless Theodore proves to be an as skilled and energetic Emperor as his brother had been.