Byzantine-Sassanid Empire

[Eivind]

According to one of my books (in Norwegian), a radical proposal was, according to the chronicler Procopius, put forward by the Sassanid king Kavadh_I in order to stop the devastating wars between the Byzantine and Sassanid Empires. Procopius, who lived at the court of Justinian the Great, wrote in The Persian War that Kavadh tried to have his third son Khosrau adopted by the Eastern Roman emperor Justin I. A similar idea had earlier been put forward by the Eastern Roman emperor Arcadius. In his testament he decided that the Sassanid king Yazdegerd_I should be entrusted the care of his son, Theodosius_II.

I do not know whether this was ever seriously considered by the other part. In both cases, the party coming up with the proposal was the one that had most to gain. But is it possible to see a situation where the two empires were in fact united? Maybe through a marital alliance between the son and daughter of the two monarchs? In order to strengthen the alliance and to unite the interests of the most powerful families, similar marital alliances could perhaps have been made between other powerful alliances in the Eastern Roman and Sassanid Empires. I assume that the Sassanid Empire would in this case have to adopt Christianity as its official religion.

So what do you think?

 

[Faeelin]

Why wouldn't the Byzantines adopt Zoroastrianism? Surely it makes as much sense as the Sassanids abandoning their faith.

 

[Eivind]

Why wouldn't the Byzantines adopt Zoroastrianism? Surely it makes as much sense as the Sassanids abandoning their faith.

From what I have read others have written about Zoroastrianism, it was on the decline. I do not know whether this is right or not, but I believe it would be unlikely that the Byzantines would change religion.

 

[Basileus Giorgios]

From what I have read others have written about Zoroastrianism, it was on the decline. I do not know whether this is right or not, but I believe it would be unlikely that the Byzantines would change religion.

There are elements of truth to it.

As for the OP: no, I don't think so. Late Rome was a "nation-state" of a sort based around the Res Publica or Politeia of the Roman people, while Sasanian Iran was a confederacy where the noble Parthian families jostled for control under the Sasanian kingship. They're fundamentally unsuited for glueing together.

 

[GdwnsnHo]

There are elements of truth to it.

As for the OP: no, I don't think so. Late Rome was a "nation-state" of a sort based around the Res Publica or Politeia of the Roman people, while Sasanian Iran was a confederacy where the noble Parthian families jostled for control under the Sasanian kingship. They're fundamentally unsuited for glueing together.

Well there are two possibilities here then.

1) The Sassanids would be a pro-Roman Dynasty, in order to have this happen, it would fundamentally have to change its position, and soften regarding the Romans (which compared to some would make them pro-Roman). It would be the pro-Roman Persian house, and have to handle that, but could in theory see Roman support.

2) The Sassanids could legitimately attempt to foster a Persian identity. Conveniently, if the Church of the East continues to grow and gain prominence, then they could piggyback the Church, and use it to strengthen the state in a similar way to the Byzantines. That could then over decades/generations, lead to a genuine Persian Empire, rather than Sassanid - and the idea of unifying the Empires could take place (especially if a the Persians and Romans have been pro-each-other due to the practice of adoption/wardship of their imperial children.

NOTE : Regarding, (1) - perversely, the introduction of Roman Support could form the impetus for a Persian Identity, even if it begins by identifying itself as not-Roman, it could still be manipulated over decades by Persian Emperors who would rather NOT keep fighting Rome.

An interesting side effect of peace between the two is that, assuming that we butterfly/stop an Islamic Caliphate, and see a Nestorian Persian Empire, an Orthodox Byzantine Empire, and a Latin/Arian Western/Holy Roman Empire - the Christian Churches are going to need to come to some sort of acknowledgement that the old idea of the 5 pentarchs being supreme is somewhat absurd. In reality the 3 (maybe 4, Alexandria is special IMO) High Patriarchs would have to be Rome, Constantinople, and (to spitball a Nestorian centre) Baghdad. I imagine that Constantinople may still want to have superiority - which could well cause problems diplomatically, but I digress.

If this system of adopting heirs worked between the Byzantines and the Persians, it could be implemented with the Western/Holy Roman Empire too. It may consist of multiple wards, or wards being moved along - but the cultural exchange through these children is certainly interesting to a TCK.

 

[John7755 يوحنا]

Why wouldn't the Byzantines adopt Zoroastrianism? Surely it makes as much sense as the Sassanids abandoning their faith.

While I seriously doubt the Sassanids would ever convert to any form of Christianity on its own, the likelihood of its conversion is more likely than a Roman conversion to Zoroastrianism as it was practiced in Iran at the time.

 

[Emperor Constantine]

While I seriously doubt the Sassanids would ever convert to any form of Christianity on its own, the likelihood of its conversion is more likely than a Roman conversion to Zoroastrianism as it was practiced in Iran at the time.

I don't know, the Shahanshahs had a fairly warm relationship with the Catholicos of the Nestorian Church. After all, the Catholicos was officially Bishop of Seleucia-Ctesiphon, the capital of the Persian Empire, so obviously there was a Christian element near the Court. While I doubt we'd see a change over a single day, I can see one of the Royal wards converting to Christianity at some point.

 

[DominusNovus]

There were certainly more Christians in Persia than there were Zoroastrians in Rome.

 

[John7755 يوحنا]

I don't know, the Shahanshahs had a fairly warm relationship with the Catholicos of the Nestorian Church. After all, the Catholicos was officially Bishop of Seleucia-Ctesiphon, the capital of the Persian Empire, so obviously there was a Christian element near the Court. While I doubt we'd see a change over a single day, I can see one of the Royal wards converting to Christianity at some point.

The problem with this is that there is no hard evidence (that I know of) of mass conversion to Nestorian or any form of Christianity in the Iranian plateau. The problem is that people assume that a populations of Christians (rather large ones) in the empire must be of the ethnic Persians, the problem is that they forget that the Sassanids possessed more than Iran, in fact almost all of its Christians were of some miniority ethnic group such as Aramaens, Assyrians, Bedouins, etc. These miniority groups never converted to Zoroastrianism because the religion itself (at least the Sassanid version) was extremely for the Aryan and not for the Semitic or the Greek or so on. Thus the population that was Christian in the empire was highly Semitic in culture and therefore it was unlikely and implausible for the most ethnocentric Persian dynasty to convert to a religion that did not glorify the Aryan or used Aramaic for its holy text rather than Zend.

I suppose hybrid type mixes could be explored but I am pretty uncreative in this department.

 

[Eivind]

As for the OP: no, I don't think so. Late Rome was a "nation-state" of a sort based around the Res Publica or Politeia of the Roman people, while Sasanian Iran was a confederacy where the noble Parthian families jostled for control under the Sasanian kingship. They're fundamentally unsuited for glueing together.

Maybe some sort of looser alliance?

The problem with this is that there is no hard evidence (that I know of) of mass conversion to Nestorian or any form of Christianity in the Iranian plateau. The problem is that people assume that a populations of Christians (rather large ones) in the empire must be of the ethnic Persians, the problem is that they forget that the Sassanids possessed more than Iran, in fact almost all of its Christians were of some miniority ethnic group such as Aramaens, Assyrians, Bedouins, etc. These miniority groups never converted to Zoroastrianism because the religion itself (at least the Sassanid version) was extremely for the Aryan and not for the Semitic or the Greek or so on. Thus the population that was Christian in the empire was highly Semitic in culture and therefore it was unlikely and implausible for the most ethnocentric Persian dynasty to convert to a religion that did not glorify the Aryan or used Aramaic for its holy text rather than Zend.

I suppose hybrid type mixes could be explored but I am pretty uncreative in this department.

I assume an alliance between the Byzantine and the Sassanid Empire where the latter is converted to Christianity would imply that the latter chose the variant of Christianity accepted by the Byzantine Emperor. Hybrids of Zoroastrianism and Christianity is an interesting ideas (of course Christianity is already influenced by Zoroastrianism through Judaism), but that would be considered heresy by the Byzantines, so it would not really be relevant in connection with a possible alliance, but it is an interesting idea in other contexts.

 

[Basileus Giorgios]

2) The Sassanids could legitimately attempt to foster a Persian identity. Conveniently, if the Church of the East continues to grow and gain prominence, then they could piggyback the Church, and use it to strengthen the state in a similar way to the Byzantines. That could then over decades/generations, lead to a genuine Persian Empire, rather than Sassanid - and the idea of unifying the Empires could take place (especially if a the Persians and Romans have been pro-each-other due to the practice of adoption/wardship of their imperial children.

Well, perhaps. There already was an important Persian identity in the Sasanian kingdom: Parsig was the description used. The problem is that most of the great houses had an equally strong identity of their own, Pahlav, which I can't see them giving up.

 

[GdwnsnHo]

Well, perhaps. There already was an important Persian identity in the Sasanian kingdom: Parsig was the description used. The problem is that most of the great houses had an equally strong identity of their own, Pahlav, which I can't see them giving up.

A quick google seems to conflate Parsig and Pahlav, but that isn't unusual.

I assume by 'them' you mean the other great houses? Frankly, forming a nation state may well involve undermining them. As the noble houses of the Normans became English, the Great House of Sassan could become Parsig or something that was a blend, purely to undermine the loyalty of the people to their houses. Do they want Great Houses that seem estranged, or to serve a King directly, that is like themselves? I can see the people leaning towards the latter. Problem is that you'd need to have Christian Parsig and Zoroastrian Parsig not really have any major issues.

Peculiar laws of religious tolerance, but trying to draw leaders from the Parsig groups (which might require some way for their members to gain prominence, I won't pretend to know if there were) would be one of the most powerful tools IMO.

 

[Derek Pullem]

Maybe not united de jure but what about united de facto.

What if Khosrau accepts the peace offer from Heraclius in 624 and the two empires stand together against the Muslim invasions of the 630's (imagine the Sassanids get the parts of Mesopotamia they ceded to the Byzantines in the previous war back as a settlement)

Assuming the stronger empires together can contain the Arab threat do we see an "understanding" between them growing? Particularly if they co-operate against other enemies both empires such as the Khazars and the Turks?

 

[GdwnsnHo]

Maybe not united de jure but what about united de facto.

What if Khosrau accepts the peace offer from Heraclius in 624 and the two empires stand together against the Muslim invasions of the 630's (imagine the Sassanids get the parts of Mesopotamia they ceded to the Byzantines in the previous war back as a settlement)

Assuming the stronger empires together can contain the Arab threat do we see an "understanding" between them growing? Particularly if they co-operate against other enemies both empires such as the Khazars and the Turks?

That isn't so much united as allied/working together when there is a shared interest.

Much easier mind you than uniting them.

However to get them to co-operate against the Muslims would require unprecedented cooperation, and a recognition of how strong the Caliphate was, prior to the invasion.

 

[John7755 يوحنا]

Well there are two possibilities here then.

1) The Sassanids would be a pro-Roman Dynasty, in order to have this happen, it would fundamentally have to change its position, and soften regarding the Romans (which compared to some would make them pro-Roman). It would be the pro-Roman Persian house, and have to handle that, but could in theory see Roman support.

2) The Sassanids could legitimately attempt to foster a Persian identity. Conveniently, if the Church of the East continues to grow and gain prominence, then they could piggyback the Church, and use it to strengthen the state in a similar way to the Byzantines. That could then over decades/generations, lead to a genuine Persian Empire, rather than Sassanid - and the idea of unifying the Empires could take place (especially if a the Persians and Romans have been pro-each-other due to the practice of adoption/wardship of their imperial children.

NOTE : Regarding, (1) - perversely, the introduction of Roman Support could form the impetus for a Persian Identity, even if it begins by identifying itself as not-Roman, it could still be manipulated over decades by Persian Emperors who would rather NOT keep fighting Rome.

An interesting side effect of peace between the two is that, assuming that we butterfly/stop an Islamic Caliphate, and see a Nestorian Persian Empire, an Orthodox Byzantine Empire, and a Latin/Arian Western/Holy Roman Empire - the Christian Churches are going to need to come to some sort of acknowledgement that the old idea of the 5 pentarchs being supreme is somewhat absurd. In reality the 3 (maybe 4, Alexandria is special IMO) High Patriarchs would have to be Rome, Constantinople, and (to spitball a Nestorian centre) Baghdad. I imagine that Constantinople may still want to have superiority - which could well cause problems diplomatically, but I digress.

If this system of adopting heirs worked between the Byzantines and the Persians, it could be implemented with the Western/Holy Roman Empire too. It may consist of multiple wards, or wards being moved along - but the cultural exchange through these children is certainly interesting to a TCK.

Tbh, it is not possible to get more "Persian" as far as ethnocentricity and Persian ideals than the Sassanids. These are the guys who sent messages to Byzantium demanding the relinquishment of territory that had not been owned by Iran in over 300 years, all because of some sort of Iranian nostalgia. It was unnecessary as well, the Sassanids could have easily went East instead of banging its head against the wall, but it did so because of how "Persian" they were if that makes sense.


Another thing, the Sassanids did have THE Persian Empire more so than any of their predecessors and more so than any of there successors until the Safavids. Therefore I don't know what you mean as far as creating a new Persian Empire rather than being Sassanid. All outside sources I know of refer to the Sassanids as The Persian Empire, I am not sure what the Byzantines called it but Syriacs, inhabitants, contemporary Arabs and the Caliphate/Muslims referred to it simply as Persia..

 

[fi11222]

Here is a suggestion :

In 580 AD, or thereabouts :

• Hormizd IV is less successful than OTL in his repression of nobility unrest and is therefore faced with a full-blown revolt leading to civil war, with an usurper heading the oposite faction.
• Tiberius Constantine seizes the oportunity and offers Hormizd help, in return for favors (border towns, etc ...)
• In order to solidify the above alliance, Tiberius Constantine convenes a council which heals the schism between Nestorianism and orthodoxy. This is feasible because the main conflict at the time is not with Nestorianism anymore but with Monophysitism, which Nestorianism also opposes.
• This has the effect of rallying most christians in Persian territory (who are mostly Nestorians) to the cause of the Hormizd IV-Byzantine alliance.
• Hormizd IV is victorious in the civil war but, just as he is about to triumph, he dies unexpectedly (say, of a scorpion bite).
• Tiberius (who lives longer here than OTL) brokers a deal between the forces who formerly supported Hormizd IV by which :
  • Mushegh II Mamikonian, a christian armenian prince is crowned "Shah of Eran" (not "Shah'n shah") as a client king of Rome.
  • He is supported by most armenian noble houses, the arab christians of southern Mesopotamia (in particular al-Nu'man III ibn al-Mundhir of al-Hira) and the Sassanian house of Zik, which converts to christianity upon this occasion.
  • The kingdom of Eran's territory includes : Armenia, Media (Atropatene) and all of formerly persian Mesopotamia down to the Persian Gulf.

This is a starting point which can, I believe, be turned into a significant expansion of Byzantium into Iran proper. Not all the Iranian plateau maybe but a sizeable part of it is conquerable in a few generations. What do you all think ?

 

[Eivind]

Here is a suggestion :

In 580 AD, or thereabouts :

• Hormizd IV is less successful than OTL in his repression of nobility unrest and is therefore faced with a full-blown revolt leading to civil war, with an usurper heading the oposite faction.
• Tiberius Constantine seizes the oportunity and offers Hormizd help, in return for favors (border towns, etc ...)
• In order to solidify the above alliance, Tiberius Constantine convenes a council which heals the schism between Nestorianism and orthodoxy. This is feasible because the main conflict at the time is not with Nestorianism anymore but with Monophysitism, which Nestorianism also opposes.
• This has the effect of rallying most christians in Persian territory (who are mostly Nestorians) to the cause of the Hormizd IV-Byzantine alliance.
• Hormizd IV is victorious in the civil war but, just as he is about to triumph, he dies unexpectedly (say, of a scorpion bite).
• Tiberius (who lives longer here than OTL) brokers a deal between the forces who formerly supported Hormizd IV by which :
  • Mushegh II Mamikonian, a christian armenian prince is crowned "Shah of Eran" (not "Shah'n shah") as a client king of Rome.
  • He is supported by most armenian noble houses, the arab christians of southern Mesopotamia (in particular al-Nu'man III ibn al-Mundhir of al-Hira) and the Sassanian house of Zik, which converts to christianity upon this occasion.
  • The kingdom of Eran's territory includes : Armenia, Media (Atropatene) and all of formerly persian Mesopotamia down to the Persian Gulf.

This is a starting point which can, I believe, be turned into a significant expansion of Byzantium into Iran proper. Not all the Iranian plateau maybe but a sizeable part of it is conquerable in a few generations. What do you all think ?

So, an alliance rather than a full union?

 

[bobsimmo]

So, an alliance rather than a full union?

better than nothing.

 

[fi11222]

So, an alliance rather than a full union?

I believe that this can be turned into a full union through the kind of relationship Rome had with client kingdoms on its eastern frontiers. First, the kingdom is an "ally", then there is a resident procurator at court with an increasing number of troops and then the "kingdom" finally becomes a full-blown province after 2 or 3 generations.

This is what happened with Emesa, Judea, Nabatea, Edessa and a number of other eastern polities. The main point of such a procedure was to allow time for the population and the local elites to get used to roman domination.

In our case, the main issue is to allow a fairly diverse population to get used to the form of centralised christianity that is championed by Byzantium. At that time, this policy of religious standardization was meeting with strong resistance in Syria and Egypt in the form of the Monophysite controversy. But in Armenia, Atropatene and Mesopotamia, the resistance might be lessened by the fact that the alternative is renewed Persian domination and likely persecution.

When orthodox christianity has gained sufficient popular support, the whole area might become a full blown roman province (or rather several).

This might be a first step before further advances on the Iranian plateau poper. Iranian society and religion were fairly fragile at the time as their complete disintegration in the face of the muslim invasion OTL slightly later demonstrates. This weakness might have been exploited by Christianity/Byzantium instead of the Arabs.

A side effect of this TL would probably be no Islam.

 

[DumbersTC]

I believe that this can be turned into a full union through the kind of relationship Rome had with client kingdoms on its eastern frontiers. First, the kingdom is an "ally", then there is a resident procurator at court with an increasing number of troops and then the "kingdom" finally becomes a full-blown province after 2 or 3 generations.

This is what happened with Emesa, Judea, Nabatea, Edessa and a number of other eastern polities. The main point of such a procedure was to allow time for the population and the local elites to get used to roman domination.

In our case, the main issue is to allow a fairly diverse population to get used to the form of centralised christianity that is championed by Byzantium. At that time, this policy of religious standardization was meeting with strong resistance in Syria and Egypt in the form of the Monophysite controversy. But in Armenia, Atropatene and Mesopotamia, the resistance might be lessened by the fact that the alternative is renewed Persian domination and likely persecution.

When orthodox christianity has gained sufficient popular support, the whole area might become a full blown roman province (or rather several).

This might be a first step before further advances on the Iranian plateau poper. Iranian society and religion were fairly fragile at the time as their complete disintegration in the face of the muslim invasion OTL slightly later demonstrates. This weakness might have been exploited by Christianity/Byzantium instead of the Arabs.

A side effect of this TL would probably be no Islam.

A full union can be possible, but it would take a lot of effort.