AHC: Tang conquest of Persia

After the Arabs conquered Persia, a few descendants of the Sasanian dynasty escaped to Tang China.

AHC: Have the Tang conquer Persia and restore the Sasanians.
 
It might be easier to have some Indian dynasty restore the Sasanians. The Tang are very far away.

So during the Sasanian fall North India was under Harsha's Empire, which had one emperor only (named, very surprisingly indeed, Harsha). When Harsha died his empire just...vanished...and afterwards North India wasn't really in a position to invade Persia.

Indeed it was getting invaded, including Tang Chinese-Tibetan attacks across the eastern Himalayas.
 
So during the Sasanian fall North India was under Harsha's Empire, which had one emperor only (named, very surprisingly indeed, Harsha). When Harsha died his empire just...vanished...and afterwards North India wasn't really in a position to invade Persia.

Indeed it was getting invaded, including Tang Chinese-Tibetan attacks across the eastern Himalayas.

Perhaps the difference is that Harsha's empire doesn't disintegrate. As a result, this new dynasty somehow forges bonds with the Sasanians, as unlikely as that may be (IMO I think Harsha's empire would probably align itself with the Byzantines against the Persians, but I'm not sure about their relations).

Later, when the Sasanians are booted out, Harsha's empire steps in to restore them.
 

GdwnsnHo

Banned
Honestly, I think that without some unusual circumstances, or serious efforts, that a Tang conquest of Persia is going to be difficult.

1) Because the logistics routes would have to either be by sea (which means amphibious invasion, not a good idea) or through taklamakan desert, or around its rim. Which is not practical, especially when it is so vulnerable to the steppe

2) Language and cultural differences - Ignoring the Himalayas as a garguantuan communications barrier, China and Persia are very different places, and I can't see a Sunni/Zoroastrian Persia being willing to exist peacefully under Chinese rule.

Which is why I like the idea of a Sassanid-reconquest backed by the Tang more than anything else - but still, point 1 still stands as an absolute nightmare.

So an interesting idea (Even if this includes broad strokes at best)

1) Have the Sassanids flee with a significant force of cavalry, horse, and people, with runners ahead to seek the shelter of the Tang.

2) Through negotiations with the Sassanids and the Tang, the Sassanids are given a deal, with joint governance of the taklamakan desert and nearby territories by the Sassanids and the Tang, if the Sassanids can secure the region, and bring the nearby nomad tribes to heel, then the Tang will provide infantry and money to support the Sassanids in reconquering Persia.

3) In reality, if the Sassanids are to survive, they need to completely dominate the mountains for their water, and then allow their riders to conquer the nearby nomads, with Tang support. Considering the trouble Islam had in subduing Persia IOTL, there could well be a supply of willing immigrants/refugees.

Is all of this possible, maybe. The Tang certainly defeated many in central asia, but if they can focus more forces on Tibet, then the Tang could rule the Tibetan Plateau and protect China proper - and leave the Sassanids to wrestle with the steppe, and then take those same troublesome nomads, and reconquer their home.

I was going to suggest including a Confucianist temple being built as a token, but Neo-Confucianism was in its infancy under the Tang. A token Daoist and Buddist temple may be plausible.

Now, assuming all this works, it still leaves an interesting side effect. Those Persians who stay in the mountains around the Tarim Basin. This isn't a 3 year trek. This is potentially the work of a lifetime, and as such there could be two generations of Persians born in the refuge. This may lead to Persia controlling part of the region, as well as the Tang. I'm not sure if it will be peaceful, but my inclination would suggest that neither have great interest in controlling the entire area, as they both wish to trade with each other, and both want to keep the nomadic tribes under control.
 
Honestly, I think that without some unusual circumstances, or serious efforts, that a Tang conquest of Persia is going to be difficult.

1) Because the logistics routes would have to either be by sea (which means amphibious invasion, not a good idea) or through taklamakan desert, or around its rim. Which is not practical, especially when it is so vulnerable to the steppe
A sea invasion makes even less logistical sense than an attack through deserts or mountains, especially when you factor in the impossibility of transporting horses that far.
 

GdwnsnHo

Banned
A sea invasion makes even less logistical sense than an attack through deserts or mountains, especially when you factor in the impossibility of transporting horses that far.

I agree, especially as the route (whilst shorter in time) is MUCH longer, with many diplomatic hurdles in between.
 
This question has prompted me to look into this history that I didn't know much about, and I've been very pleased that I did :D

Peroz III, son of the Sasanian king Yezdegerd III, seems like the best bet for the Tang trying to restore the Sasanids in Persia. He served as a Tang general after fleeing from Persia, his sister was married to the Tang emperor, and he did request assistance from the Tang emperor and attempt to take back Persia.

It doesn't look like Tang China invested much effort in his plan. In order to make this successful, you're probably going to have to substantially sweeten the pot for the Chinese and reduce their commitments elsewhere. Admittedly, I don't know enough about this period to know what POD might accomplish this (if any).
 
Top