AHC: Persians conquer Rome

scholar

Banned
If Constantinople, the New Rome, counts then they almost did it with Khosrau of the Sassanids after he captured the entirety of anatolia. Had the gains been more stable and the Romans been a little more lacking, then there's no reason why it couldn't have happened.

But 'Rome' the city? Not that likely. Maybe if a civil war occurs inside of Rome where one of the contenders to be Emperor gets help from the Persians promising some lands, something could come from that later on, or if the candidate dies with a Persian Army already on its way to Italy they may just capture the city on their own.

The logistics though, are staggering. I doubt any conquest would be stable or last more than a few generations before it either rips the Persian Empire apart or is abandoned as Persia cannot adequately defend the region.
 
Could this perhaps have happened while the East was engaged in war with the Goths of Italy?

No.

There was never enough attention put into the West to give Persia this much of an opportunity even if the peace treaties fail.
 
No.

There was never enough attention put into the West to give Persia this much of an opportunity even if the peace treaties fail.
What about if Attila sacks Rome after several earthquakes (OTL) in 447 and 448?

Not immediately after, but Eastern Rome gets into conflict with the Goths, after already having Greece and Thrace and a small part of Anatolia ravaged by the Huns, after it was already ravaged by Goths (OTL). Then Persia under an Alexander-like leader charges west.

After Constantinople is conquered, Romans escape to remnants in Italy. While those remnants in Italy are engaging the Goths yet again, the megalomaniacal Persian leader tries for Rome itself. He conquers it for one year, then dies and his empire dissolves.
 
No.

There was never enough attention put into the West to give Persia this much of an opportunity even if the peace treaties fail.

Yeah the OTL last war seems like the only real way this could work longterm. It came really close OTL and if just make things worse one the european front you could probably break the back of the empire (or atleast force the Emperor to flee to Carthage or something).
 
Yeah the OTL last war seems like the only real way this could work longterm. It came really close OTL and if just make things worse one the european front you could probably break the back of the empire (or atleast force the Emperor to flee to Carthage or something).

I'm not sure if it was ever "really close", but I don't know enough about the conditions of the siege of Constantinople.

Where's BG when we need him . . .

And even if it did work, I'm not sure it has any "long term". It grossly overstrained the Sassanid state.
 
What about if Attila sacks Rome after several earthquakes (OTL) in 447 and 448?

Not immediately after, but Eastern Rome gets into conflict with the Goths, after already having Greece and Thrace and a small part of Anatolia ravaged by the Huns, after it was already ravaged by Goths (OTL). Then Persia under an Alexander-like leader charges west.

After Constantinople is conquered, Romans escape to remnants in Italy. While those remnants in Italy are engaging the Goths yet again, the megalomaniacal Persian leader tries for Rome itself. He conquers it for one year, then dies and his empire dissolves.

The logistics would be a nightmare for the Persians. To even get close to the Italian peninsula, they will have to take control of North Africa and that alone will drain them.
 
I'm not sure if it was ever "really close", but I don't know enough about the conditions of the siege of Constantinople.

Where's BG when we need him . . .

And even if it did work, I'm not sure it has any "long term". It grossly overstrained the Sassanid state.

Here I am! ;)

The Iranians undoubtedly could have won the "great war" with Rome in about 615, and got significant concessions out of it- iirc, one of Heraclius' desperate offers for peace involved giving up all territories east of the Euphrates, all of Armenia, and paying a massive sum of money to Ctesiphon indefinitely. It was the pig-headedness of Khusrau II, who let success go to his head, that stopped this.

I don't think the attacks on Anatolia, Cappadocia apart, were ever really much more than glorified raids- certainly the Iranian armies that reached Chalcedon were only outriders. Heraclius was able to train his armies in Anatolia in the 610s, after all, which would not have been possible had the whole region been under Iranian control. There was undoubtedly a lot of devastation (archaeology at Sardis shows the ancient city ending with a layer of burnt material in the 610s, for example), but not on the level of a permanent conquest.

Constantinople I would say is probably more-or-less out of the question for the Avar/Iranian alliance to capture, for as long as the Romans maintain their sea-power. Even then, there's a high probability of failure. The Arabs brought significant fleets to the City in the 670s and 710s, and their attempts ended in failure, after all.

So, all in all, no, I don't think a Persian conquest of Rome at any point is doable- I think the seventh century war is as close as they could get, and their success there is pretty extraordinary. Lest I be accused of bias, I should also state that I think a Roman conquest of the Iranian plateau is just as unlikely. Mesopotamia is probably just within the bounds of possibility for Rome to take and hold, at least for a few generations. But beyond, nah, I can't see it!
 
The Ottomans managed to hold Mesopotamia pretty long term, but they had a significant advantage over their Iranian rivals (including the weakening of post-Timur Iran) - the Romans really don't.
 
Top