A somewhat halted Arab Surge?

I'm not too knowledgeable on the subject, I just know that both the Sassanids and the Byzantines were both war weary when the Arab Surge happened.

This led to the collapse of the Sassanid empire and the eventual loss of Egypt for the Byzantines.

Could BOTH of the empires resist the Arab Surge? If they could, what would be the after effects?
Would the Arabs end up being a uniting force for the Persians and the Byzantines?
Or could the opposite happen and 2 groups dog pile on the other? Or would it just be a free for all?
Without the Persian bureaucracy could the Arabs sustain the Islamic empire (or would the Byzantines and Sassanids resisting cause the Arabs to lose momentum?), or does this mean the Arabs push and solidify more of India/Asia.

Sorry if it's a bit much, or if it's completely implausible, I'm just curious.
 
The best way to have both empires strong enough to survive would be to have neither of them be war-weary. The two empires had been enemies since... well, since about when the Sassanids first appeared on the map, so before Rome split, even. Rome had more legions on the Persian border than on the Rhine and Danube. So an alliance between the two, ending centuries of on-and-off warfare, might be tricky. Even in the face of a powerful Arab threat. Adding in hostile Christian-Zoroastrian state religions just makes this even worse, and I doubt either of them would ally with a third religion bent on world conquest.

Perhaps you could use a POD where one empire severely defeats the other in the wars of the 6th Century, permanently claiming Mesopotamia or the Levant and Egypt. That's an interesting time to look into, with both Khrosrau and Justinian - the most celebrated emperors of both empires. Or you could look at the early 7th Century.

Or, you could just cut out Muhammad and Islam from ever happening. Then there's no 'Arab surge' at all.

By the way, both Persia and Byzantium had their fingers in pre-Islamic Arabia. The Byzantines had allies in the Ghassanids, the Persians in the Lakhmids. And in the early 7th Century, the whole southern coast of Arabia was full of Persian vassal states - Hijaz, Mahra, Oman, etc.
 
I'm not too knowledgeable on the subject, I just know that both the Sassanids and the Byzantines were both war weary when the Arab Surge happened.

This led to the collapse of the Sassanid empire and the eventual loss of Egypt for the Byzantines.

Could BOTH of the empires resist the Arab Surge? If they could, what would be the after effects?
Would the Arabs end up being a uniting force for the Persians and the Byzantines?
Or could the opposite happen and 2 groups dog pile on the other? Or would it just be a free for all?
Without the Persian bureaucracy could the Arabs sustain the Islamic empire (or would the Byzantines and Sassanids resisting cause the Arabs to lose momentum?), or does this mean the Arabs push and solidify more of India/Asia.

Sorry if it's a bit much, or if it's completely implausible, I'm just curious.

The Caliph Omar didnt want to take Persia, just Mesopotamia. The problem is that afyer yhe death of Khosro, the Sassanid fell apart into different warring fiefdoms, and each fiefdom kept attacking the Caliphate, trying to claim the glory of the Sassanids. A kore united Sassanid empire would have easily resisted the Arabs. In a TL where the Sassanids make an early peace with the Arabs I would suspect would be able to take much more of Byzantium, including Constantinople. In this TL, the Caliphate would have likely used Byzantine beuracracy and have Greek take on the role of OTL Persian.
 
So an alliance between the two, ending centuries of on-and-off warfare, might be tricky. Even in the face of a powerful Arab threat.

Tricky, but not outright impossible. IIRC, limited cooperation did exist at times between the two powers regarding defending their border from northern tribes. In the event that all three powers remain intact long-term, I can see a Ménage à trois situation unfolding, where the three states tag team each other with rapidly shifting (and strained) alliances.

However, the big problem isn't keeping Persia and Byzantium alive (simply keep Maurice on the throne, and there's a good chance the next war will simply be another in a long line of border scuffles, which dramatically increases their chances). The problem is keeping the Caliphate alive after they are dealt a series of defeats right out of the gate. If they manage to conquer Mesopotamia or Syria they might have a better chance--at the very least they have more in the way of population and infrastructure to work with than just Arabia. Otherwise they run the risk of being a 'one trick pony', as it were.

(On a related note, I found one other possible instance of the two empires working together: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Firaz The problem is, obviously, that it's...pretty clearly propaganda, and I'm not having much luck at finding any sources on the battle, or anyone of note backing it up as a thing at all. Has anyone else ever heard of this?)
 
Last edited:
However, the big problem isn't keeping Persia and Byzantium alive (simply keep Maurice on the throne, and there's a good chance the next war will simply be another in a long line of border scuffles, which dramatically increases their chances). The problem is keeping the Caliphate alive after they are dealt a series of defeats right out of the gate.

I'd definitely agree with this view. Arab cohesion was helped hugely by the conquest of Sasanian Iran and the richest provinces of the Roman Empire- what better to lubricate difficult relations than a fistful of gold, after all?
 
So, the failure to take the Persians would prevent the Arabs from unifying?
Could they attack the east instead? I read that they attacked to the north because the Arabs heard that the Byzantines and the Persians weren't in the best of shape.

Would this keep the Egyptians in the Roman sphere? Or were the divides too great?

How would this affect the two empires at large in the following centuries?
I don't know much about the Sassanid government, but would they collapse-in on themselves eventually? Or would they have periods of civil war like the Byzantines?
 
Holding Egypt relies on a number of factors. Some of them; the loosening of the province after years under Sassanid control, as well as the exaustion of the Roman army, are non-present if we continue to assume the final war never happened. This puts the chances of Egypt remaining in the Roman sphere pretty good--remember that Egypt is one of the most important areas of the empire; they'll likely go to great lengths to hold it.

However, if the Arabs capture the Levant, that separates Egypt and Carthage from the rest of the empire by land, and the second the Arabs start building their Mediterranean fleet up, the ERE's chances of holding their southern provinces will start to depend less on their land forces, and more on their ability to hold their own on the sea.

They're also likely going to have to build a new defensive line in southern Palestine or the Sinai. The problem with the southeastern border of the ERE at the time of the Arab invasion is essentially the same one the WRE had with the Rhine, only taken up a few notches. It's a long border which is increasingly hostile--and unlike the WRE, the ERE's not equipped for holding that frontier. They're used to small tribal bands, so there's not really all THAT much in the way of defensive fortifications south of the Sassanid border. Worse, the Rhine was at least a definitive border; with Arabia the area where Roman control ends and the sands begin is very grey.
 
Top