How much longer would the byzantine & sassanid empires have lasted without the arab conquests?

RousseauX

Donor
The Seljuks probably overrun Persia in the 11C, and push on into Anatolia much as OTL.

The Byzantine coonquests in Italy were being rapidly lost even before the Arab invasions, so there's no reason to think they could have reconquered the West.
So a Seljuk dynasty in Persia fighting the Byzantines in another cycle of Byzantine-Persian wars, so otl but without the Arabs on the Byzantine's southern flank and the Byzantines prob still control egypt and the levant
 
but then the Seijuk turks would have showen up at some point
The Seljuks largely ended up conquering as much of Anatolia as they did due to the chaos that followed Manzikert. Considering the amount of changes no Islam causes those very specific circumstances are very likely to be butterflied. Hell, even the Seljuks could be butterflied with no Islam. Furthermore, I think the Seljuks would have a tougher time taking on a Roman Empire that also owns all of Syria, Egypt, Carthage and maybe all of Italy too.
 
Last edited:

ar-pharazon

Banned
I still think you'll have at least one Turkic invasion reaching at least Mesopotamia by 1100 AD at the latest.

The pressure to expand was there and a stronger Tang China could force various Turkic tribes to move westwards.
 
Syria, maybe. Egypt? No way, they wanted independence, not a change in the foreign rulers.

Egypt also had different views on Christianity. IIRC, they were leaning more in the direction of focusing on the divine aspect of Christ. And it wasn´t like they were particularly eager to fight of the Arabs conquerers in OTL.

I still think you'll have at least one Turkic invasion reaching at least Mesopotamia by 1100 AD at the latest.

The pressure to expand was there and a stronger Tang China could force various Turkic tribes to move westwards.

Or they might move towards India after going to Persia.
 
The Seljuks largely ended up conquering as much of Anatolia as they did due to the chaos that followed Manzikert. Considering the amount of changes no Islam causes those very specific circumstances are very likely to be butterflied. Hell, even the Seljuks could be butterflied with no Islam. Furthermore, I think the Seljuks would have a tougher time taking on a Roman Empire that also owns all of Syria, Egypt, Carthage and maybe all of Italy too.


Won't those just be added burdens?
 
Won't those just be added burdens?
If they've held onto them for so long they'll have to worry about the Seljuks then no. Because that would imply the provinces are stable, not war torn, have large taxable populations, natural resources and more territory to fall back on if things go south in the east. The Seljuks in our timeline couldn't even conquer an Empire that held a quarter of that land.
 
Would there likely be further encroachment into Arabia by Romans/Byzantines (or Post-Byzantine) and Sassanid/Post-Sassanid successor empires?
 
If they've held onto them for so long they'll have to worry about the Seljuks then no. Because that would imply the provinces are stable, not war torn, have large taxable populations, natural resources and more territory to fall back on if things go south in the east. The Seljuks in our timeline couldn't even conquer an Empire that held a quarter of that land.

That begs the question of whether the Empire is likely to have held them (continuously) that long. After all, OTL it was already losing Italy even before the Arab invasions. All it took was for the latest Persian war to divert their resources, and their western conquests started to evaporate.

And there will still be Persian Wars - either with the Sassanids if their power revives, or else with whatever new power (probably something from out of Central Asia) has taken their place.

The ERE weathered the 5th Century reasonably well, but then that idiot Justinian came along with "eyes bigger than his belly", and wrecked it with a massive dose of imperial overstretch.
 
That begs the question of whether the Empire is likely to have held them (continuously) that long. After all, OTL they were already losing Italy even before the Arab invasions. All it took was for the latest Persian war to divert their resources, and their western conquests started to evaporate.

That depends entirely on how long it will take for Persia to recover following it's devastating defeat in the last war. I don't think any sane Persian Shahanshah would want to pick a fight with the Romans too soon after that. Persia will be dealing with civil war and/or invasion where as Rome can sit back, divide and conquer and reintegrate the eastern provinces back into the Empire. Slowly waiting for the time to retake the Balkans.
 

ar-pharazon

Banned
If Persia is engulfed in civil war and Turkic invasion for the next century or two that would buy the Byzantines time to reconsolidate their western holdings.

And to deal with other threats on the priority list-the Slavs, Blugarians, Lombards, Berbers, Visigoths, etc...
 

TruthfulPanda

Gone Fishin'
Even IF the Turks reach and settle Anatolia - a very big if - the chances for Christianisation are 99%. For Hellenisation also quite high.
 
That depends entirely on how long it will take for Persia to recover following it's devastating defeat in the last war. I don't think any sane Persian Shahanshah would want to pick a fight with the Romans too soon after that. Persia will be dealing with civil war and/or invasion where as Rome can sit back, divide and conquer and reintegrate the eastern provinces back into the Empire. Slowly waiting for the time to retake the Balkans.

Byzantines weren't doing so great either. There's ample historical evidence that they had been placed under huge political strains and the fact is that both sides were fielding large armies shortly thereafter while equally failing to have control over their homefront.

I often have talked about how Syria and Egypt aren't the most probable locations for a revolt but at this point they really don't care for the Romans and have just had a taste of relatively light Sassanian military administration for a long while. Those regions will be tough to control and reincorporate, although outright rebellion is unlikely.

The Persian wars were cyclical at any rate and tended to prove devastatingly expensive to all involved. More plausibly the Sassanians as a dynasty are on their way out, although who replaces them, there's no saying.
 
Even IF the Turks reach and settle Anatolia - a very big if - the chances for Christianisation are 99%. For Hellenisation also quite high.

Too many butterflies even if we assume that Turks reach Anatolia in force in the 11th century despite all the butterfkies. Might as well be devout Manichaeans or something by that point.
 
Byzantines weren't doing so great either. There's ample historical evidence that they had been placed under huge political strains and the fact is that both sides were fielding large armies shortly thereafter while equally failing to have control over their homefront.
Those regions will be tough to control and reincorporate, although outright rebellion is unlikely.
The Persian wars were cyclical at any rate and tended to prove devastatingly expensive to all involved. More plausibly the Sassanians as a dynasty are on their way out, although who replaces them, there's no saying.
The point is though that the Romans will now have ample time to reincorporate the Eastern provinces, the Persians don't have that kind of time to rebuild. As such I would say the Romans are in a pretty good position for a while here if there is no sudden Arab conquest to exploit it. It will be hard and difficult for Constantinople to recover, but now that the Persians are temporarily crushed they will have the time to do so to some extent.
 
Last edited:
The point is though that the Romans will now have ample time to reincorporate the Eastern provinces, the Persians don't have that kind of time to rebuild. As such I would say the Romans are in a pretty good position for a while here if there is no sudden Arab conquest to exploit it. It will be hard and difficult for Constantinople to recover, but now that the Persians are temporarily crushed they will have the time to do so to some extent.

Why doesn't Persia have time to recover? Seems to me like Rome has far more fronts to worry about.
 
Why doesn't Persia have time to recover? Seems to me like Rome has far more fronts to worry about.
I edited my post just as you posted that. As said, I don't think Rome has that many existential problems on many of their fronts. The Persians are gone in the east and as per this POD the south is secure aswell. The Balkans will suffer raids but ultimately the Slavs won't be able to take Constantinople nor cross into Anatolia. The Lombards didn't do much in our timeline despite the Caliphate so I don't see them doing much here. The only front that is a problem for the Romans is Africa, as Berber raids would probably increase.

That's far from a desperate situation, infact if anything it's an improvement over most of the 6th Century.
 
Too many butterflies even if we assume that Turks reach Anatolia in force in the 11th century despite all the butterfkies. Might as well be devout Manichaeans or something by that point.


And if they are Christian, it will probably be Nestorian or some such - at any rate, something viewed as heresy by Constantinople.

As for whether Persia "recovers" or not, that hardly matters. If it doesn't, it will only be replaced by something else. There'll always be a power there.

That's how it always went. The Romans crushed the Seleukids and got the Parthians in their place. They outlasted the Parthians only to get the Sassanids in their place. They beat off the Sassanids only to get the Arabs in their place, when the Arabs declined they got the Seljuks in their place and when the Seljuks declined they got the Ottomans in their place. There was always another opponent waiting just behind the current one.
 

ar-pharazon

Banned
That was an ever recurring problem for the Roman's and especially the Byzantines.

Defeat or outlast one enemy and then the next and the next and the next.

Till you get to an enemy you can't beat.

However the migration era still has a few centuries to go-if the Byzantines can weather the Magyars, Slavs, Turkic invasions, and whatever else comes from the east, north or west than I think by 1100 AD the situation will have stabilized.

Assuming the Byzantines can get in on the Indian Ocean trade and control at least their 628 territory(though likely more) then the future is likely to be secure for them.
 
And if they are Christian, it will probably be Nestorian or some such - at any rate, something viewed as heresy by Constantinople.

As for whether Persia "recovers" or not, that hardly matters. If it doesn't, it will only be replaced by something else. There'll always be a power there.

That's how it always went. The Romans crushed the Seleukids and got the Parthians in their place. They outlasted the Parthians only to get the Sassanids in their place. They beat off the Sassanids only to get the Arabs in their place, when the Arabs declined they got the Seljuks in their place and when the Seljuks declined they got the Ottomans in their place. There was always another opponent waiting just behind the current one.

That’s the nature of geopolitics though... Every major nation that competes for hegemony will encounter this issue. Nations who are either:

1. Isolated to a large degree, at least from powerful political foes. Examples such as the Inca Empire faced very little stare actor opponents to authority, primarily due to the relative isolation it enjoyed and technological/societal superiority to nearby tribes. Some other examples would be the Edo period Tokugawa Shogunate.

2. A state that has reached a certain level of hegemony that predominantly, only unlikely occurences cause collapses or internal disasters. Examples of these are the zenith of Rome and the Achaemenid Empire. Both of which were virtually untouchable for their time, in terms of total defeat in war unless the occurrence was very irregular. The Mongol Empire is one such state and conglomeration that in essence, lacked geopolitical foes who could truly destroy the Mongol ensemble completely, however the empire fractured due to internal contradictions.

3. The power is so shielded by another or inconsequential to amount to a non threat and thus accumulation of rival political entities, is limited. Examples of these are much of the Chinese spheres tributaries, especially the various Tibetan states. San Marino and Switzerland would be some other examples, both lack political aspirations that would warrant rival accumulation.

In regards to Sassanid v. Byzantine geopolitics, the issue depends.

Yes, the Sassanid empire has less borders with varying groups than Byzantium. However, this does not mean the Sassanid threats or power is greater long term or short term. To make one statement, Byzantium is simply stronger and more robust than the Sassanid. This is a simple reality and thus all discussions must build from the knowledge that the pain Byzantium can take is possibly too much for the Sassanid and that in protracted wars and conflict, Byzantium is likely to be the winner in such scenarios.

Sassanid threats analyzed:

-Rival clans revolt. Self explanatory, this is worse in the lands of Parthia, in terms of threat posed.

-Byzantium itself...

-Invasion from the Caucasian mountains. This, I mean, an invasion from the steppe bypassing the mountains and striking into Iran or Iraq. This happened numerous times, likely the Hittites, Cimmerians, Scythians, Khazars, etc... Sassanid protection of the frontier depends on maintaining various fortresses and chokepoints. If Sassanid order collapses, without ordered restructuring, the route is open for the north.

-Eastern: A myriad of foes and possibly ones. Migrating Turkic hordes, Mongol hordes, the rising Tibetan Empire, the Zunbil, the fading yet remaining Hepthalite Empire, the Gupta and other Hindu-Buddhist powers originating from beyond the Khyber.

-Southern: The threat that broke the Sassanid state in otl. This would be the possibility of Arabic conquest.
 
Regarding Byzantium, this is just one of those PoDs that's basically whatever you want to make of it. Maybe the Byzantines fall to the Bolghars (or an analogous Turkic-nomadic group, or even Iranian), or maybe not. Maybe they get stomped by some *Catholic state to the West, maybe they hold their own, or maybe there's nothing even resembling the Schism - and therefore the OTL distinction between "East" and "West" - at all.

Islam threw such a wrench in the Mediterranean world that it's pretty much impossible to fit the pieces together without it.
 
Top