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

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.


Quite likely, but not really the point.

Byzantium may well win more often than not, but winning will tie up enough of their resources to ensure that any conquests in the west are ephemeral. Justinian was only able to do what he did because the Sassanids were at a low ebb (iirc the White Huns were her big problem) and not in a position to interfere. As soon as Persia recovered a bit, the western gains began to slip away.

Byzantium can certainly survive - esp if it gets a ruling dynasty from somewhere like Syria, who can retain the loyalty of that region - but its eastern border isn't ever likely to be quiescent for more than a generation or two at a time, so campaigns in the west are just throwing away resources.

Much the same would be true for the Ottomans in their turn. In the 16/17Cs, their empire was about the same as Justinian's, but that didn't last. In the 1700s the African lands slipped away, leaving just the core area from Belgrade down to Mecca and Kuwait. But this core was perfectly defensible, and the OE held it w/o major losses until the late 19C.
 

ar-pharazon

Banned
Mehmed did land in Italy but I believe was distracted or was otherwise unable to continue the campaign.

Strategically Sicily is a must, the Adriatic coast is a must, and Carthage is a must.

Holdings in other parts of Italy or Iberia can be abandoned when needed.

It is fascinating though-how the ottoman Safavid dynamic mirrored the Byzantine-Sassanid one.

Might a sustained Byzantine invasion be able to break Persia?

Come to think of it-holding the Veneti region, Ravenna, and Rome is beneficial too. Really Italy is a good foothold in Europe.

If Italy can be integrated into the empire and the alps border secured then the Byzantines would profit greatly.
 
Might a sustained Byzantine invasion be able to break Persia?


What do you mean by "break"?

It can be temporarily incapacitated by a big enough defeat, but sooner or later will either recover or else be overrun by the next arrival from Central Asia, after which it's the mixture as before, unless Byzantium can conquer all the way to the Indus, which is most unlikely, and anyway would only give Byzantium a border to defend on the Oxus or thereabouts instead of the Euphrates - just as formidable a problem but with worse logistics.
 
What do you mean by "break"?

It can be temporarily incapacitated by a big enough defeat, but sooner or later will either recover or else be overrun by the next arrival from Central Asia, after which it's the mixture as before, unless Byzantium can conquer all the way to the Indus, which is most unlikely, and anyway would only give Byzantium a border to defend on the Oxus or thereabouts instead of the Euphrates - just as formidable a problem but with worse logistics.

To be honest, the only way I can see Persia stopping being a problem is to pull a Rome AARisen (Old CK2 game) - and effectively replicate the situation of multiple Emperors, one in Mesopotamia, Persia, etc, and one in the "Central Empire" of Anatolia, Balkans, Syria and Egypt. - with the West being reassembled via Exarchs. If the Romans are able to defect/avoid the Arab conquests, and perhaps even use them as mercenaries/settlers to make conquest easier, then the window is open to take advantage of the collapse of the Sassanids.

So you don't "break" Persia. You Rebuild Persia as a Brother of Constantinople of Rome. Probably based at an eastern city, like *breathes* Bukhara, Konye-Urgench, Mashhad, Merv, Nishapur, Nisa, Samarkand, or Sari. (My favourings are Nishapur, Samarkand and Sari - Sari because you can have it protected easily from Steppe invasion from a newly revamped (for the third time) wall of Gorgon, Nishapur because of its position, and turquoise mines gives it mystique to me, and Samarkand because... well, beat Timur to it. I actually think Sari is the best because it is less vulnerable than the other two, and Mazandaran could in theory be settled to build a strong Helleno-Persian heartland for this Roman Era Persia.

I personally love the idea of a Roman-Reforged Persia, one because it could end the Eternal War, but also because Sari can effectively act as an early warning system to Constantinople - with the possibility of reinforcements being sent from an overwhelmingly more prosperous (because peace) Mesopotamia and Syria. If Sari are smart enough to make control of Central Asia a major goal (i.e. to control the movement of nomads), then they can send for reinforcement armies if required with much more practical lead times. Both Empires can set up strong overland logistics to support each other - imagine Afghan forces being sent to assist in Italy or Spain/Berbers in Central Asia?
 

ar-pharazon

Banned
What do you mean by "break"?

It can be temporarily incapacitated by a big enough defeat, but sooner or later will either recover or else be overrun by the next arrival from Central Asia, after which it's the mixture as before, unless Byzantium can conquer all the way to the Indus, which is most unlikely, and anyway would only give Byzantium a border to defend on the Oxus or thereabouts instead of the Euphrates - just as formidable a problem but with worse logistics.
I mean end as a threat to Rome-for at least a century or so.
 
So you don't "break" Persia. You Rebuild Persia as a Brother of Constantinople of Rome.

Interesting but your best bet for this is probably, ironically, some sort of scenario where Rome still rises and defeats a still strong Seleucid type empire and somehow has to inherit the whole deal. You've got to get the Empire into the east early, before overstretch becomes a concern. Even then it will be difficult. Or maybe some sort of Mark Antony era conquest of Parthia is the key we're looking for - although even then I hesitate to postulate that such a thing is plausible. It would be tricky and a fascinating timeline to see indeed.

The problem is the Romans, for all their (relative) abhorrance of naval combat and preference for land war, are a nation that's based around maritime logistics and transport. We see this as late as the final Byzantine Sassanid war, where Roman naval capabilities really were the deciding factor in preventing eventual Sassanid triumph (or at least a favorable stalemate). I'm firmly of the opinion that the Iranian plateau is a difficult beast to conquer from the West - relatively smaller powers have held it against greater rivals for centuries with few exceptions.

The other big problem is even if you somehow set up an Augustus or Basileus or what have you in Persia, how do you prevent their overthrow? This is no Arab/Turkic invasion, where the Romans can afford to settle the East or colonize in some sense. By the late Roman era those resources don't exist. No major transplant of Greek-speakers into the east is possible anymore and even if it was it would be potentially disastrous. I struggle to concieve of how you move beyond a military government in this scenario - a temporary occupation that gets undone by the next major revolution. Even the Arabs, who struck Iran at it's weakest and had the spare people to settle it in some numbers, were ultimately stuck dealing with Iranian insurgencies and rebellions for centuries. Even they ultimately assimilated to no small degree even as they converted Iran to Islam.

A Roman enthroned in Samarkand of all places is quickly either going to assimilate or be overthrown or retire to somewhere nicer like Egypt. Justinian couldn't hold on to territories in his own backyard with the comparitively easy Mediterranean logistics he was accustomed to - what Emperor is going to be able to hold Central Asia? How many armies can the Romans afford to send into the Iranian plateau when there's so many other frontiers that need garrisoning.
 
Interesting but your best bet for this is probably, ironically, some sort of scenario where Rome still rises and defeats a still strong Seleucid type empire and somehow has to inherit the whole deal. You've got to get the Empire into the east early, before overstretch becomes a concern. Even then it will be difficult. Or maybe some sort of Mark Antony era conquest of Parthia is the key we're looking for - although even then I hesitate to postulate that such a thing is plausible. It would be tricky and a fascinating timeline to see indeed.

The problem is the Romans, for all their (relative) abhorrance of naval combat and preference for land war, are a nation that's based around maritime logistics and transport. We see this as late as the final Byzantine Sassanid war, where Roman naval capabilities really were the deciding factor in preventing eventual Sassanid triumph (or at least a favorable stalemate). I'm firmly of the opinion that the Iranian plateau is a difficult beast to conquer from the West - relatively smaller powers have held it against greater rivals for centuries with few exceptions.

The other big problem is even if you somehow set up an Augustus or Basileus or what have you in Persia, how do you prevent their overthrow? This is no Arab/Turkic invasion, where the Romans can afford to settle the East or colonize in some sense. By the late Roman era those resources don't exist. No major transplant of Greek-speakers into the east is possible anymore and even if it was it would be potentially disastrous. I struggle to concieve of how you move beyond a military government in this scenario - a temporary occupation that gets undone by the next major revolution. Even the Arabs, who struck Iran at it's weakest and had the spare people to settle it in some numbers, were ultimately stuck dealing with Iranian insurgencies and rebellions for centuries. Even they ultimately assimilated to no small degree even as they converted Iran to Islam.

A Roman enthroned in Samarkand of all places is quickly either going to assimilate or be overthrown or retire to somewhere nicer like Egypt. Justinian couldn't hold on to territories in his own backyard with the comparitively easy Mediterranean logistics he was accustomed to - what Emperor is going to be able to hold Central Asia? How many armies can the Romans afford to send into the Iranian plateau when there's so many other frontiers that need garrisoning.

I mean, the Seleucid approach is a different (and interesting) PoD.

Regarding conquest from the west - we're talking about the period just before that actually happened, for at least the second time.

Not that these aren't valid concerns, but in theory it isn't impossible for a Roman Emperor to do it either slowly (whilst the region is reuniting). Like with the Romans in Gaul, Africa, etc - it'll have to include locals to even have a chance of working. If that can happen then the Roman forces that are normally used to defend against Persia are the perfect forces to start establishing Persia, and heck - use the loot to pay Arab Mercenaries like Khosrau did to invade Syria.

(I don't think Samarkand is defensible personally, but it is an obvious candidate).
 
Late to the party, but still.

The Sassanid was a sinking ship and in deep crisis long before Islam and the Arabs came knocking. Their probably still screwed. You may have a a Sassanid rump in Persia proper with the rest of the Empire going up in flames. (Independent Armenia, or made into a Eastern Roman client state, the Ispahbudhans likely ruling Khurasan, the Mihranids and the Karinids squabbling over Media and Daylam, the Surenids in the Nimruz, etc.)

With the lack of the OTL Arab Invasions and Caliphate, the Eastern Romans are likely to endure for a long while, but it will he hard. The Roman Army would still be busy primarily in the Balkans and the East ITTL, and Africa would be about as problematic militarily. The Pope will still come to resent Byzantine power, but alliance with the Franks is unlikely to occur as early as IOTL. (So no Papal States.)

If all goes well, the Eastern Romans can keep a firm grasp on the Mediterranean, and all the Western Kingdoms would continue to serve as psuedo tributaries to Constantinople. (More so with the lack of unity the Arabic Invasions had to the Christian States.)
 
Some things worth noting:

The 500's and 600's Roman Empire typically had a poor run against the Sassanians. Both sides traded major defeats but the Sassanians consistently were attacking Roman territory and scoring big victories, including sacking Antioch. This would culminate in the overreaches that characterized the wildly unsuccessful Iranian "Siege" of Constantinople. In the same period, the Iranian plateau itself saw limited to no Roman incursions. The devastation was largely one sided.

Succession crises were nothing new to the Sassanians and even if the dynasty collapsed another could easily step up. But again, despite substantial defeats the Sassanians were still standing, no different than the Romans. The idea that they are doomed is based on the same calculus which sees the entire southern and eastern Mediterranean doomed to be lost to the Rashidun Caliphs. Even during the nadir of the Sassanians they were still fielding substantial armies, a clear sign that their manpower wasn't spent and the empire wasn't exhausted. They fell to a threat outside of the traditional context - a threat they didn't expect and couldn't have forseen. By contrast the Romans are a known quantity.

I recognize I'm not without bias - I've been taking a solidly pro-Iranian strength stance primarily as a counterbalance to the fanciful pro-Roman notions common on this site. Someone's gotta do it. But I really think that the Iranians are in many ways the worst sort of for for the Byzantine Empire in this day and age. The Sassanians had built a system that worked - a political system that successfully contested the Near East with the Romans, something more or less unthinkable for the Arascids.

Ten Emperors in two years is bad - I won't deny that. I still think the Sassanians were doomed sooner or later, but more or less just to be replaced by a more vital inheritor of the same system. Someone else mentioned the Turks or some Hindu-Buddhist kingdom in Afghanistan, and I think those are likely.
 
Africa would be about as problematic militarily

How problematic was Africa for the Byzantines?. I've always had the impression that Africa was very much a net positive for the Byzantines, certainly it didn't cause problems like Italy did, and didn't have sectarian grievances like Syria and Egypt.
 

ar-pharazon

Banned
To be honest, the only way I can see Persia stopping being a problem is to pull a Rome AARisen (Old CK2 game) - and effectively replicate the situation of multiple Emperors, one in Mesopotamia, Persia, etc, and one in the "Central Empire" of Anatolia, Balkans, Syria and Egypt. - with the West being reassembled via Exarchs. If the Romans are able to defect/avoid the Arab conquests, and perhaps even use them as mercenaries/settlers to make conquest easier, then the window is open to take advantage of the collapse of the Sassanids.

So you don't "break" Persia. You Rebuild Persia as a Brother of Constantinople of Rome. Probably based at an eastern city, like *breathes* Bukhara, Konye-Urgench, Mashhad, Merv, Nishapur, Nisa, Samarkand, or Sari. (My favourings are Nishapur, Samarkand and Sari - Sari because you can have it protected easily from Steppe invasion from a newly revamped (for the third time) wall of Gorgon, Nishapur because of its position, and turquoise mines gives it mystique to me, and Samarkand because... well, beat Timur to it. I actually think Sari is the best because it is less vulnerable than the other two, and Mazandaran could in theory be settled to build a strong Helleno-Persian heartland for this Roman Era Persia.

I personally love the idea of a Roman-Reforged Persia, one because it could end the Eternal War, but also because Sari can effectively act as an early warning system to Constantinople - with the possibility of reinforcements being sent from an overwhelmingly more prosperous (because peace) Mesopotamia and Syria. If Sari are smart enough to make control of Central Asia a major goal (i.e. to control the movement of nomads), then they can send for reinforcement armies if required with much more practical lead times. Both Empires can set up strong overland logistics to support each other - imagine Afghan forces being sent to assist in Italy or Spain/Berbers in Central Asia?
How exactly does one romanize Persia?
 
If it's hit that badly it just won't be there any more. The next lot out of Central Asia will overrun it and they will be the ERE's new neighbour.

To say nothing of the fact that Rome never showed the capacity to crush it's neighbor to the east to that level or the kind of genocidal campaign across the Iranian plateau that would be necessary for that.
 

ar-pharazon

Banned
If the ERE got an emperor of Trajan's caliber with the brutality of Severus or the Roman invasion of Caledonia. The slaughter, burn, ravage, and destroy sort of policy-could that have been enough to break Persia as a threat to Rome?
 
If the ERE got an emperor of Trajan's caliber with the brutality of Severus or the Roman invasion of Caledonia. The slaughter, burn, ravage, and destroy sort of policy-could that have been enough to break Persia as a threat to Rome?

When? You've got to situate this person in a context first. How do they come to power? What time period? As I've stated, roughly after the 6th century the Romans are largely on the back foot. More often than not they're paying the Sassanids tribute and the Sassanids are expanding and becoming more agressive.

After the Khosrow II dies, it's anyone's bet what will happen but by that point the Romans are exhausted too so you'll have to give both sides some substantial breathing room.

I mean hypothetically you can stack the deck however you want, but I'm skeptical that one ambitious and capable emperor is enough, absent a perfect storm of other factors.
 
Even during the nadir of the Sassanians they were still fielding substantial armies, a clear sign that their manpower wasn't spent and the empire wasn't exhausted. They fell to a threat outside of the traditional context - a threat they didn't expect and couldn't have forseen. By contrast the Romans are a known quantity.

I know I've been very doom and gloom about the Sassanid's political prospects earlier in the thread, but I can't agree with this enough. The Sassanid army of Yazdegerd III was a force to be reckoned with. Their generals like Andarzaghar were preparing for a new war with Rome and all of their military doctine was geared toward killing Romans. Their armies were incredibly professional and the idea that Rome is going to roll over them is, frankly, absurd. The Sassanids knew how Romans fought and were prepared for that, what they weren't prepared for the lightning attacks was the Rashidun Army. Even during the Arab invasions, with the massive veteran armies they fielded, a lesser Rashidun general than Khalid ibn al Walid would have been obliterated. He only is able to pull off what he did because of some brilliant tactics and the good luck that the Persian military tactics were anti-Roman based, not because the Persian Army was weak.

You can't look at the Rashidun conquests and conclude that Rome could have pulled off the same thing. They don't have a Khalid and Sassanids were ready for them.
 
Sassanid Dynasty will probably end sooner or later, but that's really not as big a deal as many here seem to think...
OnFBUkA.png

Look at all of those! You telling me that Rome can do all that yet Persia can't change its dynasty once?

If anything a new Persian Dynasty will have to have been at least more competent than the Sassanids (assuming it arrises through military means and not just court intrigue), and thus would represent an even bigger threat to the Romans, kinda like how the Sassanids replaced the Parthians.
 
Last edited:
If the ERE got an emperor of Trajan's caliber with the brutality of Severus or the Roman invasion of Caledonia. The slaughter, burn, ravage, and destroy sort of policy-could that have been enough to break Persia as a threat to Rome?

Would that be possible? Persia is a heck of a lot bigger than Caledonia.

But, at the risk of getting repetitious, even if it were achievable, how would it help? If Persia is brought to total collapse, some other tribe - Arabs, Turks, whatever - will move in. In that semi-nomadic world, where it is a commonplace for whole peoples to migrate hundreds or even thousands of miles, the supply of new powers is essentially endless. The ERE gets a decade or two's respite, then it's business as usual, with nothing much changed except the name of its eastern neighbour.
 
If the ERE got an emperor of Trajan's caliber with the brutality of Severus or the Roman invasion of Caledonia. The slaughter, burn, ravage, and destroy sort of policy-could that have been enough to break Persia as a threat to Rome?

They wouldn't be able to take over Iran, much less destroy it - the Sassanids might be inept after Khosrau dies, but the Parthian Clans had armies that were at least as powerful, and they would be fighting on their home turf, in desertic terrain, which they know perfectly while the Romans would have to depend on, like, Xenophon. It's not happening.

Would that be possible? Persia is a heck of a lot bigger than Caledonia.

But, at the risk of getting repetitious, even if it were achievable, how would it help? If Persia is brought to total collapse, some other tribe - Arabs, Turks, whatever - will move in. In that semi-nomadic world, where it is a commonplace for whole peoples to migrate hundreds or even thousands of miles, the supply of new powers is essentially endless. The ERE gets a decade or two's respite, then it's business as usual, with nothing much changed except the name of its eastern neighbour.

The Sassanid Empire was very much not a nomadic tribe. People here are really underestimating how powerful Iran was - it was literally the only developed state that defeated Rome and Byzantium regularly in wars.
 
Some things worth noting:

The 500's and 600's Roman Empire typically had a poor run against the Sassanians. Both sides traded major defeats but the Sassanians consistently were attacking Roman territory and scoring big victories, including sacking Antioch. This would culminate in the overreaches that characterized the wildly unsuccessful Iranian "Siege" of Constantinople. In the same period, the Iranian plateau itself saw limited to no Roman incursions. The devastation was largely one sided.

Succession crises were nothing new to the Sassanians and even if the dynasty collapsed another could easily step up. But again, despite substantial defeats the Sassanians were still standing, no different than the Romans. The idea that they are doomed is based on the same calculus which sees the entire southern and eastern Mediterranean doomed to be lost to the Rashidun Caliphs. Even during the nadir of the Sassanians they were still fielding substantial armies, a clear sign that their manpower wasn't spent and the empire wasn't exhausted. They fell to a threat outside of the traditional context - a threat they didn't expect and couldn't have forseen. By contrast the Romans are a known quantity.

I recognize I'm not without bias - I've been taking a solidly pro-Iranian strength stance primarily as a counterbalance to the fanciful pro-Roman notions common on this site. Someone's gotta do it. But I really think that the Iranians are in many ways the worst sort of for for the Byzantine Empire in this day and age. The Sassanians had built a system that worked - a political system that successfully contested the Near East with the Romans, something more or less unthinkable for the Arascids.

Ten Emperors in two years is bad - I won't deny that. I still think the Sassanians were doomed sooner or later, but more or less just to be replaced by a more vital inheritor of the same system. Someone else mentioned the Turks or some Hindu-Buddhist kingdom in Afghanistan, and I think those are likely.

Im convinced of the doom of the Sassanian dynasty not because of Rome but because the state basically fell apart to a civil war before the arabs. The Parthian dynasties have revolted and I dont see the Sassanians mastering that crisis. IMO partly thats what made Heraclius comeback possible. It might be that one dynasty manages to unite Persia soon but it might take a while. But it wont be in any shape to seriously threaten the ERE for a while thats for sure. OTOH I also dont see the Byzantines conquering let alone holding Persia.

On another matter: the introducing of the thema system was a huge change for byzantine military - and IMO pretty effective. How do you see the new army fare against the various enemies it didnt have to face OTL because of the arabs? I mean mainly a sassanian sucessor state and the berbers.
 
Top