The Persians would probably gain some knowledge from the Romans, but would they be willing to use it, as the Roman Empire was for most of their history their greatest enemy. In addition to this, some knowledge is always lost in war and I cannot see the Persians being to lenient on Constantinople, the "Queen of Cities" and wealthiest city in Europe. They would probably steal all its movable wealth, enslave or kill off many of the citizens and then burn it to the ground.
Byzantium Falls to Persia
- Thread starter Diamond
- Start date
Diamond
Banned
I guess what I was going for in my original post was a scenario where Byzantium never really 'got off the ground'. I just picked no-Justinian as an example. (Although as someone pointed out, that might have been a good thing.) The POD I had in mind was not simply Persia/Avars taking Constantinople, but something vaguer, something earlier.
I was imagining an Eastern Empire that was beset from around 400 AD or even earlier with all kinds of bad luck, so much so that they turned inwards and were too busy engaging in civil wars and the like to really arouse Persia's ire. In this scenario, there would still of course be a war here and there with Persia, but nothing like the knock-down-drag-out conflict of OTL that weakened and depopulated both sides so much that they became in effect easy pickings for the Arabs.
What I was thinking about was:
--what are the after-effects on European culture, with no (relatively) strong successor state to the united Roman Empire? Without a continuing Latin presence, is Rome's legacy diluted? Do other cultures gain impetus earlier, maybe so much so that they and not Rome become the cornerstone of later civilization in Europe?
--How does a Persia unweakened by decades of near-constant war look? Does their culture 'catch fire' and become culturally influential in the farther reaches of Europe - the western Med, and the North? Or do they stagnate with no enemy to match their strength, and eventually succumb to somebody else, like the Mongols? Both?
--What happens with Islam?
I was imagining an Eastern Empire that was beset from around 400 AD or even earlier with all kinds of bad luck, so much so that they turned inwards and were too busy engaging in civil wars and the like to really arouse Persia's ire. In this scenario, there would still of course be a war here and there with Persia, but nothing like the knock-down-drag-out conflict of OTL that weakened and depopulated both sides so much that they became in effect easy pickings for the Arabs.
What I was thinking about was:
--what are the after-effects on European culture, with no (relatively) strong successor state to the united Roman Empire? Without a continuing Latin presence, is Rome's legacy diluted? Do other cultures gain impetus earlier, maybe so much so that they and not Rome become the cornerstone of later civilization in Europe?
--How does a Persia unweakened by decades of near-constant war look? Does their culture 'catch fire' and become culturally influential in the farther reaches of Europe - the western Med, and the North? Or do they stagnate with no enemy to match their strength, and eventually succumb to somebody else, like the Mongols? Both?
--What happens with Islam?
Diamond said:
Wasn't the Eastern Empire more greek than Roman by the 600s anyway? And how much cultural/economic/whatever exchange was there between the Franks, Visigoths, wtc. with the Byzantines OTL?
Diamond said:
Christianity and the Latin language would seem to guarantee a strong cultural link with the Roman past. In any event, a number of scholars have argued that German warrior culture and habits of government were at least as important in determining the shape of Medieval culture as the Roman legacy.
Diamond said:
Do they convert to Nestorian Christianity? The Zoroastranism bit puts a bit of a cultural barrier between them and Europe, if perhaps not as high as the one between Christianity and Islam. Possibly some influence on ideas of government and kingship, as the one great power known to Europeans and the inhabitants of N. Africa.
Diamond said:
All empires eventually go through sticky spots: largely feudal ones like the Persian empire, fairly often. The Turks might do a job on them long before the Mongols amount to anything.
Diamond said:
Butterflied, I'd guess. Fair - to - middling chance something else comes out of the religious stew of Arabia, but perhaps not until later.
best,
Bruce
It's entirely implausible that the Eastern Empire will remain unnoticed by Sassanian Persia. There are few ways that the Eastern Empire can be destabilized anymore than it was. It's too strategically placed to be anything but a money magnet. The Persians were capable of little more than they did historically.
That's why I stipulated that the only truly plausible timing of such an event is the last Byzantine-Persian War. It was when Byzantium was so weak, they could do little else. Justinian had wasted so much money that the usually strong and vibrant empire was struggling, so much so that Maurice was killed because he had to cut pay to finance the defensive wars Justinians policies created.......
Without that war, Byzantium is simply too wealthy to be destroyed by Persia.......
That's why I stipulated that the only truly plausible timing of such an event is the last Byzantine-Persian War. It was when Byzantium was so weak, they could do little else. Justinian had wasted so much money that the usually strong and vibrant empire was struggling, so much so that Maurice was killed because he had to cut pay to finance the defensive wars Justinians policies created.......
Without that war, Byzantium is simply too wealthy to be destroyed by Persia.......
Diamond said:I will take that as a challenge.
Please do. The geography is difficult to overcome, especially with non-established nomadic tribesmen........