All Hail Emperor Belisarius I the Great!!!

Now you're just pushing it. ;) I think it's going to be heavily overstretched which is not going to be good unless you plan on having the Arabs making mince meat of the Byzantines, if Islam is not already butterflied out.
 
Hmm, I wonder, where are Basileus, Petete, and Dante...?
Other than Epimethius and Sa'id, they were the only people who commented in my TL, so far...
So, yes, I kinda missing them...:p
(especially Basileus, for his critics...:D)
 
Last edited:
Hey sorry about the absence gentlemen.

I think that the Romans taking Persia is completely ASB, you have to realize that The Roman Empire is riddled with plague and raising armies is going to be difficult, this is one of the reasons the Arabs in OTL conquered so much land so quickly a couple of generations later, even if Rome takes the Sassanid Empire they aren’t going to have the manpower to hold it. Belisarius would know this and if war with Persia did indeed happen I think the best the Romans could hope for would be to have Lazica and Iberia come under Constantinople’s sphere of influence.
 
 
I would agree that taking and holding persia proper is asb, but I think it would be possible to take and hold the fertile crescent (anything east of the Zagros) as even at this point in history there are remnant diadochi greeks that would help them to hold on to the area. But even that is pushing the bounds of possibility given the state the Byzantines are in at the moment.

Having thought about this a bit, Belisarius comes on the historical scene at a time that has a lot of first glance potential for Roman exspansion, but the plague comes along and exspansion has to be curtailed. Basically after the plague you have let the populations rise before you can legitemately allow any of the big powers in Europe and Asia expand. So basically, realistically speaking Persia is off limits for Roman exspansion following the plague You can stretch things a bit to allow them to take a bit of Persian territory (and if you allow Persia to get hit a bit harder by the plague and barbarian invasions thus weakening them) but its ASB for Belisarius to take all of Persia. That's just how I see things at the moment.
 
Seizing Persia is a little too much. Perhaps temporarily seize Mesopotamia and destroy the Sassanid capital as well as many major city in the area to do some collective justice on the Persians and then withdraw from the area.
 
Yeah a successful raid that forces the Persians to stay on their side of the Zagros, and makes Mesopitamia a no-mans land is very concievable and definitley possible. The Romans did that on repeated occaisions, the last being under Julian the Apostate a 150 years or so earlier. I think Belisarius could be a bit more effective though.
 
Yeah a successful raid that forces the Persians to stay on their side of the Zagros, and makes Mesopitamia a no-mans land is very concievable and definitley possible. The Romans did that on repeated occaisions, the last being under Julian the Apostate a 150 years or so earlier. I think Belisarius could be a bit more effective though.

I was thinking something along the scale of the Mongol invasions which I believe utterly devastated the area of Mesopotamia for centuries to come. I imagine the Sassanid empire collapsing as of a result or be incredibly weakened. It would make things a lot more easier for Arabs to move in to the area once it's devastated.
 
Alright, since all comments say that "Belisarius conquered Persia" is ASB, maybe I should edit the last part of my TL or something like that...
BTW I wonder why so many people think that "Romans took Persia" scenario is ASB, while the more ASBish scenario like "Arabs took the entire Persia and half of Byzantium" is in fact happened in OTL...
 
Alright, since all comments say that "Belisarius conquered Persia" is ASB, maybe I should edit the last part of my TL or something like that...
BTW I wonder why so many people think that "Romans took Persia" scenario is ASB, while the more ASBish scenario like "Arabs took the entire Persia and half of Byzantium" is in fact happened in OTL...

Simple, the Arabs weren't hit by the plague and demographic loss that century upon century of constant warfare brings between two major powers and their general at the time Khalid, was a military genius on par with Belisarius or Julius Caesar, who hit both Byzantine and Sassanid empires at exactly the right time. So basically the Arabs got lucky and Belisarius got unlucky.
 
Simple, the Arabs weren't hit by the plague and demographic loss that century upon century of constant warfare brings between two major powers and their general at the time Khalid, was a military genius on par with Belisarius or Julius Caesar, who hit both Byzantine and Sassanid empires at exactly the right time. So basically the Arabs got lucky and Belisarius got unlucky.

And plus the Arabs had some help from elements within the Byzantine population.
 
(This is me thinking out loud about the question you posed Rex) Basically as Alt History fans, and writers we're playing the part of bookies, trying to figure the odds of something happening. You can adjust the odds sometimes but if there are too many strikes against a particular thing happening then it becomes ASB. Its ASB for Rome to conquer Persia at this point because it has too many strikes against it, in terms of demographic loss, economic loss and the fact that Persia is too strong an opponent at this point with a brilliant Emperor of its own at the helm. I want Belisarius to do well and hey watching him conquer Persia would be awesome, but realistically speaking the moment that happens, the Romans will be hit by other barbarian tribes and you're just going to get a repeat of what the Arabs did, except that that is going to happen a few centuries earlier, and the entire empire is going to go down.

Now if Belisarius turns Mesopotamia into a no-mans land then decides to deal with Arab raiders as a side note and conducts a destructive raid on the Hejaz or decides to conquer the Hejaz in order to secure another route to India, well then you've eliminated the Arab threat for the future (I would think) and set the stage for a stronger Roman empire under Belisarius's successors to potentially conquer Persia.

These are just my thoughts on the matter so take them for what you will.
 
Simple, the Arabs weren't hit by the plague and demographic loss that century upon century of constant warfare brings between two major powers and their general at the time Khalid, was a military genius on par with Belisarius or Julius Caesar, who hit both Byzantine and Sassanid empires at exactly the right time. So basically the Arabs got lucky and Belisarius got unlucky.

Is that true...? AFAIK the plague hit Arabia too...

(This is me thinking out loud about the question you posed Rex) Basically as Alt History fans, and writers we're playing the part of bookies, trying to figure the odds of something happening. You can adjust the odds sometimes but if there are too many strikes against a particular thing happening then it becomes ASB. Its ASB for Rome to conquer Persia at this point because it has too many strikes against it, in terms of demographic loss, economic loss and the fact that Persia is too strong an opponent at this point with a brilliant Emperor of its own at the helm. I want Belisarius to do well and hey watching him conquer Persia would be awesome, but realistically speaking the moment that happens, the Romans will be hit by other barbarian tribes and you're just going to get a repeat of what the Arabs did, except that that is going to happen a few centuries earlier, and the entire empire is going to go down.

Now if Belisarius turns Mesopotamia into a no-mans land then decides to deal with Arab raiders as a side note and conducts a destructive raid on the Hejaz or decides to conquer the Hejaz in order to secure another route to India, well then you've eliminated the Arab threat for the future (I would think) and set the stage for a stronger Roman empire under Belisarius's successors to potentially conquer Persia.

These are just my thoughts on the matter so take them for what you will.

Ah thanks Epimethius, that's an interesting idea...
(although I really prefer "Belisarius conquered Persia" scenario...:D)

About "barbarian" things, at this point Franks and Visigoths were pretty much busy consolidating their kingdoms, Lombards was an ally, Slavs had been anihillated, and Hephthalites was busy digesting India...
So I thing that was a perfect moment for Belisarius to have a major invasion...

Moreover, after the decisive battle of Ctesiphon, the remaining Persian Empire was fracturing and easy to ripe, so...
 
Maybe a better scenario would be to somehow get the Sassanid Persian Empire to collapse (dynastic struggle maybe) and then let the Romans come in to pick up the pieces. Establish vassals in the far east to protect that flank and then take the Hijaz to gain more of a presence in the Red Sea, thus eliminating the arabic threat.

Basically what you've done is force a corn snake to swallow an elephant whole. Sure it can unhinge it's jaw, but not that much....
 
Yes the Arabs were hit by the plague but the plague originated in Egypt and spread through out a very well connected Roman empire very fast via grain shipments, hitting the Romans a lot harder. I really do want to see a well constructed timeline on Belisarius and I really couldn't care if it goes into ASB territory so long as it's acknowledged as such. You just have to keep in mind that there was barely 70 years between the death of Justinian and the start of the Arab wars. In other words maybe a generation or two, which given the average life span of the age. You couple that with the constant warfare of the period between Persia and Rome and you can see how and why the Romans were wanked by the Arabs.

But I'm glad that you can use my ideas, and I look forward to the next installment :D
 
I'm sorry for saying this, but there is something wrong with my computer (again), so I need some more days (again...) to finish the updates...
Trust me, as long as I'm being a member in this forum, I will continue this TL until it reach present day (hopefully, and assuming that I live long enough to do that...), since Belisarius is my favorite historical figure (other than Alexander, Hannibal, Caesar, and Octavian)...
And BTW, I will stick to my original idea, the Arabs would still appear as in schedule, but lets say that they wouldn't as successful as OTL...
I have said this before, but thank you for all opinions and ideas that you posted here guys, I really appreciate that...
 
Top