Byzantine-Sassanid Empire

GdwnsnHo

Banned
Like a Habsburg-Lorraine?

Yes, a post-adopting Nestorian Hasburg-Lorraine style deal.

Or perhaps for even better comparison

Saxe-Coburg and Gotha.

As I mentioned earlier, it could only really work post-Christianity being adopted, and I stand by the idea that it could be used as a tool of the state.

Because the dynasty that emerges, example : Komneno-Sassans, or in Persia, Sassano-Komenids, would be Christian, and would have to respect the Nestorian and Orthodox faiths (oh the headache).

But the reason I us the Saxe-Coburg and Gotha as the example - depending on where the dynasty rules from, or the member that unites the Empires, they change the name.

Much like Saxe-Coburg and Gotha because House Windsor. :)
 
In the whole of Persia yes. But in the western half of Persia, where Christians are actually a majority, it is quite likely possible.


The western half of Persia matters not, it was filled with miniority Semites who had no say in how the Sassanids rule... Also be careful in how you say Persia, clarify, because the western half of the empire was Iraq which was not Iranian and only a part of the Sassanid Empire. In fact none, or any where close, of the Iranian plateau was a majority other than Zoroastrianism... Even Bactria payed lip service to Zoroaster.
 

fi11222

Banned
I have to say that this idea seems all but ASB to me, at least on the level of, say, a Byzantine-Abbasid Caliphate union.
I am not so sure. Towards the end of the 5th century, the Sassanid Empire was still strong but quite brittle, as the way it disintegrated under islamic pressure in the early 7th century shows.

And it was divided, with quite strong minorities in the west (Armenians, Arabs) and in the East (Kushans). If somehow a nasty civil war breaks out, it is not inconceivable to have it split in two halves (east and west) or even break up into 5 or 6 regional kingdoms. If this happens, the ERE might then absorb it piecemeal. In such a scenario, christianity would play in favor of the Byzantines as it was far more dynamic than Zoroastrianism at this time.
 
I am not so sure. Towards the end of the 5th century, the Sassanid Empire was still strong but quite brittle, as the way it disintegrated under islamic pressure in the early 7th century shows.

Do you think the Byzantines are also brittle? They lost a lot of their best territory, and their capital was besieged repeatedly.
 

fi11222

Banned
Do you think the Byzantines are also brittle? They lost a lot of their best territory, and their capital was besieged repeatedly.
I think it would be fair to say that, towards the end of the 6th century:
  • The Sassanian Empire was strong but brittle
  • The ERE was (relatively) weak but resilient
Byzantium was indeed beaten repeatedly by the Sassanians and then the Arabs, yet it survived. The Sassanian Empire crushed the Byzantines initially, invaded half their territory and, yes, beseiged their capital. Yet, at the first serious counterblow (by Heraclius in 622-625) it dissolved into civil war and was therefore powerless to stop the Arabs.

I believe that this situation could have played to the advantage of the ERE even more than it did in OTL.
 
Top