AHC/WI: Arab-Byzantine Alliance?

I know it seems a bit far fetched, but hell, it ain't called a challenge for nothing...

Related to my other thread on a longer lived Muhammad and a clear succession, but not necessarily dependent upon your reading of that thread:

Your challenge is to have the ruler of the Byzantine Eastern Roman Empire agree to or reach out the Arabs for an Arab-Byzantine Alliance against the Sassanids rather than go to war with the Arabs as well.

My thinking was that the ERE would offer territorial possessions in the Levant, Egypt, and southern Persia as incentive which would satisfy the Arabs for a time, while the ERE simply uses the newly strong Muslim Arabs to completely defeat the Sassanids and take over nearly all of the formerly Persian territory.... But it's your challenge...

Make the Arabs and the Byzantines at least nominally tenuous allies for a while against the Sassanids, have the alliance succeed, and then please describe the inevitable effects on history...

Thank you very much in advance!
 
I know it seems a bit far fetched, but hell, it ain't called a challenge for nothing...

Related to my other thread on a longer lived Muhammad and a clear succession, but not necessarily dependent upon your reading of that thread:

Your challenge is to have the ruler of the Byzantine Eastern Roman Empire agree to or reach out the Arabs for an Arab-Byzantine Alliance against the Sassanids rather than go to war with the Arabs as well.

My thinking was that the ERE would offer territorial possessions in the Levant, Egypt, and southern Persia as incentive which would satisfy the Arabs for a time, while the ERE simply uses the newly strong Muslim Arabs to completely defeat the Sassanids and take over nearly all of the formerly Persian territory.... But it's your challenge...

Make the Arabs and the Byzantines at least nominally tenuous allies for a while against the Sassanids, have the alliance succeed, and then please describe the inevitable effects on history...

Thank you very much in advance!
The Byzantines would be seen as crazy to even contemplate giving up Egypt and the Levant for the sake of forging alliances with the Arabs against Persia. Those territories were more important to their wealth and power than anything Persia offered.

The more likely scenario would be for the Byzantines to promise partitioning Persia between themselves and the Arabs, should the Arabs agree to help. A collaboration of that sort would probably force the Sassanids into forging similar alliances with neighboring East Iranians and Turkics, which might make the Arab-Byzantine cooperation backfire in the long run.
 
The Byzantines would be seen as crazy to even contemplate giving up Egypt and the Levant for the sake of forging alliances with the Arabs against Persia. Those territories were more important to their wealth and power than anything Persia offered.

The more likely scenario would be for the Byzantines to promise partitioning Persia between themselves and the Arabs, should the Arabs agree to help. A collaboration of that sort would probably force the Sassanids into forging similar alliances with neighboring East Iranians and Turkics, which might make the Arab-Byzantine cooperation backfire in the long run.

Just to clarify: I certainly didn't mean ALL of Egypt or the Levant or Syria. Just portions of each. The Arabs would be more than capable of taking those themselves once the Sassanids are defeated and the alliance ends...
 
Just to clarify: I certainly didn't mean ALL of Egypt or the Levant or Syria. The Arabs would be more than capable of taking those themselves once the Sassanids are defeated and the alliance ends...
Lol, so what was the purpose behind this alliance in the first place? You don't assume the Byzantines were stupid, do you? :p
 
Lol, so what was the purpose behind this alliance in the first place? You don't assume the Byzantines were stupid, do you? :p

Haha, no. The purpose would be to get a newly powerful and aggressive force off their back long enough to eliminate a mutual enemy and then reassess how to deal with their Arab allies post-Sassanids without the immediate threat of invasion from either...

Or was I not clear?

Anyway, this isn't a PC it's an AHC. I want to watch your creativity and knowledge of history converge to offer me a scenario that, alas, my creativity and knowledge of history could not.
 
Just to clarify: I certainly didn't mean ALL of Egypt or the Levant or Syria. Just portions of each. The Arabs would be more than capable of taking those themselves once the Sassanids are defeated and the alliance ends...

Portions of the Levant might make sense. Portions of Egypt makes no sense.
 
Portions of the Levant might make sense. Portions of Egypt makes no sense.

You're right, of course, but that was just part of my uneducated guess at how the Arabs could be convinced to leave the ERE alone for enough time for both to eradicate the Sassanids. Since I'm uneducated, I made this challenge to learn how it could have occurred - not if it could have occurred.

Just ignore my theories an have a go at the challenge. If I knew enough to comment at all this wouldn't be a challenge, it'd be a tl. Haha
 
What portions of the Levant? There isn't much the Byzantines could offer without critically weakening their strategic or economic status.
 
What portions of the Levant? There isn't much the Byzantines could offer without critically weakening their strategic or economic status.

I'm not familiar with what the ERE comfortably held during that time.

Territorial concessions, if plausible, would be preferable but not necessary for the challenge. However you deem it plausible for an Arab-Byzantine Alliance against the Sassanids is fine, then describe the short and long term effects if possible.
 
My thinking was that the ERE would offer territorial possessions in the Levant, Egypt, and southern Persia as incentive which would satisfy the Arabs for a time, while the ERE simply uses the newly strong Muslim Arabs to completely defeat the Sassanids and take over nearly all of the formerly Persian territory.... But it's your challenge...

Never in a million years.

In terms of plausibility, it's akin to the USA offering California, Texas and Florida to Mexico in exchange for joining NATO against the Soviets. Indeed, it's rather less plausible, because the Romans had by this point had over half a millenium of lording it over the Arabs, compared to about a century of American experience of pushing Mexico around.

There'd have been no reason for the Romans to see the Arabs as much more than a bunch of heretical savages, much the same as they were used to. It won't have been until after about 645, with the failure of the initially succesful expedition to expel the Arabs from Egypt, that the true extent of the disaster of end of Heraclius' reign began to be realised, and by that point it was much too late.

Bottom line is that I simply can't see a Roman/Arab alliance of powers that are anything like equals without a period of significant and heavy Roman defeat/Arab triumph first.
 
Wouldn't a Roman-Persian alliance actually be more likely, since the two were more or less equals and could possibly work together against the upstarts?

Not that that's likely, either.
 
Wouldn't a Roman-Persian alliance actually be more likely, since the two were more or less equals and could possibly work together against the upstarts?

Not that that's likely, either.

err there was a allaince just too late because both powers had already weakened on top of incompetent generals.
 
Basically, as has been said, no territoral concessions will be accepted by the Byzantines, but they would certainly be willing to ally with the Arabs against the Sassanids. The question is, how do we convince the Arabs that the Sassanids are a better target? The Byzantines are closer and almost as weak (the outcome should show why I consider them slightly stronger than the Sassanids at this point), and from the Arabs' perspective the only one that seems to matter is relative distance, since their doctrine seemed more or less based on conquering the word in its entirety, leaving no nation exempt.

It's a bit of a handwave, but my first though for a reason would be to have Muhammad discourage attacks on People of the Book, which would leave the Sassanids as their primary target. In that situation, the Sassanids are going to fall. The Arabs are at full strength and not wading through Byzantine corpses to get to Persia, so we can expect them to be stronger and to perform better there. Persia falls, the Arabs probably take over most of it, while the Byzantines take a more manageable bite, probably most of Mesopotamia.

Fast forward thirty years or so and we have two roughly equal near eastern great powers, each with a large dissenting minorities (Persians and monophysites respectively). They are also both suffering from violent tribes on their northern frontier, so by that point it's anybody's game to win, and could very well be determined by individual personalities. Rivalry and occasional wars are pretty much guaranteed here. If I had to guess which would last longer as a unified state I would pick Byzantium, and would give this particular Caliphate a maximum lifespan of about 150 years before Persia becomes its own seperate entity again. If Byzantium is going to fall, then the Caliphate's best chance is to invade quickly, and by not attacking as quickly as they did IOTL that already tips the scales a fair deal in Byzantium's favor.
 
Okay, here's an idea.

Let's say a Muhammad-style prophetic leader starts preaching in Arabia about five or ten years earlier than OTL, blending elements of Christianity, Judaism and traditional Arab paganism, again as OTL. Meanwhile, off to the North, Maurice is deposed, Heraclius revolts against Phocas, and the Roman defence of Syria falls apart. So far, so OTL.

The difference here is that by 620, there's a powerful new Arab confederation in existence beyond the reach of the Sasanians and moreover is actively sympathetic to the Roman cause. When Heraclius begins his fightback in the 620s, it makes perfect sense to turn to these Arabs for support and, in exchange for vague promises of theological discussions (the Church in the 620s was clearly desperate, after all, as can be seen from its surrender of wealth to Heraclius) they expel the Iranians from Egypt and the Levant on behalf of the Empire, restoring order to the realms of the People of the Book.

By 645, the alliance has been a spectacular success, with the Sasanian monarchy in tatters and the entirety of the East, from the Danube to the Indus under the control of Constantinople and its "loyal vassals". But for how long can an alliance that has repeatedly found it impossible to reach doctrinal agreement last?
 

GdwnsnHo

Banned
Forgive my ignorance if anything here is utterly absurd. BUT

A potential idea could be to have some sort of Byzantine 'Lawrence of Arabia' figure near Heraclius, perhaps a general from the Ghassanids, that could create a 'Desert Legion' to work on pushing towards modern Yemen.

If they can manipulate some of the tribes to work with the Ghassanids in exchange for stakes in the cinnamon/spice trade.

The motivation for Ghassanids, less hostile raiders, friendly arabs - shiny new money, and Byz - a great (if shared) stake in the cinnamon spice trade, and lower costs for Greek merchants.

I understand Augustus tried and failed, due to bad advice. But if it worked (details pending) - you'd have multiple arabian allies, more money for the Byzantines.

Would this not satisfy your conditions? Whilst I acknowledge the details are patchy, does it have to be mohammeds arabs?
 
Arab-Byzantine alliance against Sassanid Persia,

You would need a Roman victory at the Yarmuk and an Arab victory at the battle of Hira in 637 under Muthanna, Plus Heraclius and his brother Theodore would have to be more tolerant towards the Monophysite Christians and the Jews and accepting Muhammad's letter to him . You would also need a Sassanid revolt against Shah Theodore to make the alliance work. The Romans would use the Arabs to put down the Sassanids and the Arabs would become a vassal people to the Romans , settling within the empire and helping to reconquer the Western Empire. All kinda ASB :)
 
Top