Challenge: a Sassanian Syria

I've lately been toying with the idea for a TL that involves a stronger Sassanian Empire in the Late Antiquity (though not by any means a Persian wank).

However, I have run into a little trouble. What is the earliest POD for a plausible Sassanian conquest of Syria? It doesn't necessarily have to involve the whole of Coele-Syria, just a majority of the north (i.e. Seleucid Syria before the conquest of Judea from the Ptolemies).

Also, what would the ramifications of a Persian Syria be? Obviously there may be temporary occupations by Roman forces as in OTL Mesopotamia, if the Sassanians manage to secure their hold over Syria, what are some short and long term effects?

Thanks.
 

Typo

Banned
The Sassanids did hold Syria during the Byzantine-Persian wars, and came pretty close to winning it too, butterfly away Heraculius and the Arab invasion I guess.
 
The Sassanids did hold Syria during the Byzantine-Persian wars, and came pretty close to winning it too, butterfly away Heraculius and the Arab invasion I guess.

Yes, in the Byzantine-Sassanid war (591-622), the Sassanids took Syria, Egypt, and much of Anatolia, and held them for over a decade before Emperor Heraclius led the Byzantine resurgence. Kill off Heraclius and replace him with an incompetent, or otherwise make the war go just a little bit worse for the Byzantines, and you can get a Sassanid Empire about the size of the Achaeminid Empire of Darius I.

How to stop Caliph Umar from taking it all away in the 630's-640's I leave up to you.
 

Philip

Donor
How to stop Caliph Umar from taking it all away in the 630's-640's I leave up to you.

You have already addressed that problem:

Kill off Heraclius and replace him with an incompetent, or otherwise make the war go just a little bit worse for the Byzantines, and you can get a Sassanid Empire about the size of the Achaeminid Empire of Darius I.

If Heraclius is removed from the scene before 620, and the Persians will be in fine shape to handle the Arabs.
 
If Heraclius is removed from the scene before 620, and the Persians will be in fine shape to handle the Arabs.

Not sure. They'll be defending a massive amount of territory, much of which hasn't been theirs for all that long, and they'll still be recovering from a decades long war with the Byzantines. Khalid ibn Walid and Umar were fairly good generals, and they might ally with whats left of the Byz (no, I don't think such an alliance would last very long, but a coordinated attack on the Persians would be advantagious for both sides).

Not saying its not doable, but I don't think it would be a sure thing for the Persians.
 

Philip

Donor
Not sure. They'll be defending a massive amount of territory, much of which hasn't been theirs for all that long,

Twenty years for most of the areas the Arabs can reach initially. Many, such as the Egyptians, were happy to have the Persians there. Compared to OTL, the Egyptians, for example, are likely to work with the Persians as opposed to helping the Arabs against the Romans.

and they'll still be recovering from a decades long war with the Byzantines.

If the war ends around 615, that gives them nearly two decades to recover, and without having had Heraclius destroying Mesopotamia along with the Persian army, there is much less recovery needed.

Add to this that removing Heraclius before he has any success means that there is never a falling out between Shahrbaraz and Khosrau/Kavadh II, Ardashir III is not assassinated, and the general anarchy that followed OTL never happens.

Khalid ibn Walid and Umar were fairly good generals,

Shahrbaraz and Shahin were no slouches either.


and they might ally with whats left of the Byz

Doubtful. The Byzantines have nothing to offer at this point. Given the losses they would have suffered, there is a good chance that the empire would collapse in on itself -- much as the Sassanids did OTL. The Arabs would be far better served allying with the Göktürks.
 
I suspect a worse third-century crisis is relatively plausible. Syria and Egypt were central to the Roman state's stability. If the Sassanians can hold on to their conquests in the 250s and not lose out to the Palmyrenes too early, or if they can vassalise them, there is a chance that Aurelian, instead of crushing an enemy with no strategic depth, could find his forces unequal to the task. Make that end in another round of assassinations and acclamations and you give the Persians another few decades during which to establish a hold on Syria. Bad butterflies for Rome, but I think it would be possible.
 
Twenty years for most of the areas the Arabs can reach initially. Many, such as the Egyptians, were happy to have the Persians there. Compared to OTL, the Egyptians, for example, are likely to work with the Persians as opposed to helping the Arabs against the Romans.

Sure the Sassanids won't start persecuting Christians like they did in the rest of the empire? That would definately motivate a lot of Egyptians/Syrians to support the Arabs.

If the war ends around 615, that gives them nearly two decades to recover, and without having had Heraclius destroying Mesopotamia along with the Persian army, there is much less recovery needed.

Add to this that removing Heraclius before he has any success means that there is never a falling out between Shahrbaraz and Khosrau/Kavadh II, Ardashir III is not assassinated, and the general anarchy that followed OTL never happens.

Good points. Though tribal nomand armies tend to have a really good record in the Middle East (Turks, Mongols), and during their early conquests the Arabs were bascially a tribal nomand army.

Doubtful. The Byzantines have nothing to offer at this point. Given the losses they would have suffered, there is a good chance that the empire would collapse in on itself -- much as the Sassanids did OTL. The Arabs would be far better served allying with the Göktürks.

Makes sense. Though a coordinated Arab-Gokturk alliance (admittedly not such a sure thing due to the distances involved) would still force the Persians to fight a two-front war.
 
Sure the Sassanids won't start persecuting Christians like they did in the rest of the empire? That would definately motivate a lot of Egyptians/Syrians to support the Arabs.

No they won't. The presecution in the Sassanid empire were politicaly motivated, because the emperors feared that the christians would ally with the roman empire. When the christian church split and formed a persian nestorian section (the assyrian church of the east) the presecution was reduced and in 562 Chosrau I garanted freedom of religion. Chosrau II even had a christian wife.

If the sassanids manage to decisivily defeat the byzantine empire they won't have to fear the christians acting as a fifth column eliminating the main reason for their presecution.
 
If the sassanids manage to decisivily defeat the byzantine empire they won't have to fear the christians acting as a fifth column eliminating the main reason for their presecution.
Especially if the Romans thought that the heretics were about to sell them out and went for a Inquisition type witch hunt of them.
 
Top