There are no "Syria" or "Egypt" polities at that time.
How much longer would the byzantines & sassanids have lasted without the arab conquests? could the byzantines have rebuilt the roman empire? Is it likely the turks & mongols would still take them down?
Fact is that they moved out from the Roman Empire because they did not agree with the Dogma/Doctrine. And were tolerated by the Sassanids because they were different from Roman Catholic Orthodoxy.
If today mumbo-jumbo and mental loop-jumping about the nature of Christ - absolutely incomprehensible to anybody who is sane and not a theologian - is no longer important, than jolly good for everybody!
But that mumbo-jumbo mattered there and then.
It's still a fair point that the Christians of Iraq would probably not want to join the Romans. If they get a choice is of course, another question entirely, but Romans don't have a great track record for holding Mesopotamia.
I think it is likely that Egypt and Syria would become independent sooner or later even without an Arab conquest. Christological disagreements would make it difficult to keep the empire united. The disagreements might seem ridiculous to modern people, but they were very important to people at that time.
I don't know if I could see the tang getting past the Caspian Sea-much beyond declarations of vassalage.I think the Romans actually have a very good shot at surviving with no Arab Conquests happening when they did. They had a chunk of territory that was wealthy, vast and relatively easy to defend. The Roman navy was unmatched in the Mediterranean and no Western European states were at the time strong or centralized enough to really pose an existential threat. Heraclius had already done some pretty extensive work on reintegrating the eastern provinces before the Arabs showed up in our timeline, so I don't think it's likely these provinces would fall to rebels.
No Arab Conquests would also mean Iconoclasm is butterflied entirely, putting the Empire in a much better standing in regards to the Roman Patriarch. Once the Lombards start applying pressure in the 8th Century, the Empire might have recovered to the point where they might be able to resist the loss of Ravenna and Rome. Not to mention that all that important early Christian art isn't destroyed.
The Sassanids on the other hand are pretty screwed, they were already falling apart before the Arabs showed up, and Heraclius devised a divide and conquer strategy on them to keep them weak. The Sassanids would either be replaced by a new Persian dynasty, like they had replaced the Parthians, Persia might balkanize for a long period of time or it would be conquered by steppe nomads from the north. The fate of Persia would be a lot less certain than the Romans due to their unstable position.
What I am really interested in here is oddly enough what happens to China? The Tang Dynasty had expanded further west in the 7th Century than any other Chinese Dynasty, making clients of tribes all the way to the Caspian Sea. This mass expansion was put to a halt by the Umayyads, what happens here with a weak Persia? Will we see a Pax Sinica across the Asian Steppes? Will Rome and China finally make formal contact?
While no Iconoclasm is probably a good thing for the Romans, they will certainly face issues with the Emperor trying to maintain monothelitism. It took until Constantine IV for the monarchy to finally abandon the doctrine, if the Empire maintains control over Syria and Egypt, the doctrine likely remains and only serves to alienate the North Africans (sans Egypt), Greeks, and the Italians especially the Pope.No Arab Conquests would also mean Iconoclasm is butterflied entirely, putting the Empire in a much better standing in regards to the Roman Patriarch. Once the Lombards start applying pressure in the 8th Century, the Empire might have recovered to the point where they might be able to resist the loss of Ravenna and Rome. Not to mention that all that important early Christian art isn't destroyed.
the An Lushan Rebellion had more to do with halting the expansion of the Tang Dynasty into Central Asia. Now that could be butterflied by the PoD, but any similar rebellion would likely mean the same thing for the Tang.What I am really interested in here is oddly enough what happens to China? The Tang Dynasty had expanded further west in the 7th Century than any other Chinese Dynasty, making clients of tribes all the way to the Caspian Sea. This mass expansion was put to a halt by the Umayyads, what happens here with a weak Persia? Will we see a Pax Sinica across the Asian Steppes? Will Rome and China finally make formal contact?
Huh? Maybe I'm reading it wrong but the text shows a Shapur II that executes his own tutor for apostasy, not the most Christian friendly tale I ever saw.
Said Christians disagree with you on this.
Syria, maybe. Egypt? No way, they wanted independence, not a change in the foreign rulers.Syria and Egypt might decide to ally with the Sassanids in order to get independence from the Byzantines.
but then the Seijuk turks would have showen up at some pointSeems to me balkanisation of persia would have left the romans in a pretty good position if no muslim/arab invasion.