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

I can only fully agree with @Practical Lobster's position that this forum has a tendency to underestimate Iran and overestimate Byzantium.

Let's say the Sassanid dynasty falls in a civil war co-occurring with (Byzantium-aligned or not, but not united) Arabian attacks from the South and Göktürk attacks from the North. Mesopotamia is temporarily lost, but soon the next imperial dynasty ruling the Iranian plateau is going to recover it. Let's say it's somehow come to power with massive Göktürk influence and stays on friendly terms with the latter. There could or could not be a religious reform, but certainly no conversion to the Christian religion of the Roman arch-enemy, not even to a variety considered heretic by the latter. I'd go for a Kartir-like reformer of Zoroastrianism. Structural reforms in the military and state apparatus could be minor or major. Whatever it looks, it sounds like quite a formidable opponent to the ERE once again. And who says that the anarchy into which Byzantium descended from the end of the 7th century onwards is all averted by the absence of Muslim conquests?
 
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.

I am very VERY much aware. Hence the strategic value in reforging it. The power vacuum itself is as dangerous as Persia, because you have no idea who will fill it. However, quoting below, as I largely agree with the analysis. (Ignoring the last two sentences).

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.

Effectively, we're taking advantage of a Persia in disarray, that IOTL was conquered by the Arabs. I see no reason why in a scenario where they don't, the Romans couldn't undertake the effort, if done right. A Roman-Persia that includes Iranians, backed by the Romans immediately has an advantage over others, even if it also has disadvantages. There are also considerable compromises that the Romans would have to make.

Its advantage is a backer (as it is fundamentally still PART of the Roman Empire), and as such is able to guarantee security against them long term, and has no Western Threat. That is HUGE in my opinion.

Disadvantages/Compromises include Nestorians and Zoroastrians, and needing to accept them, not merely tolerate them. It could be that this 'Eastern Roman Empire' becomes Nestorian, or brings Nestorian thought back into debate. It would also have to accept Zoroastrians long term without prejudice. Easy enough to do as the society already accepts it, you just have to ensure that you're not discriminating against them too overtly. (The Jizya was tolerated.. so why not?)

But no bones about it, besides my earlier suggestion of colonising the Mazandaran region - this state is overwhelmingly Persian, with Greek at most becoming an Elite Language or Lingua Franca. Its armies are Persian, its signs are in Persian, it'd likely describe itself as Iran, or some variant of that. This isn't Alexander the Great colonising Persia. This is reuniting an Empire under another - much like the Arabs did under the Caliphate. Hence why I say you're reforging an Empire in this scenario.

I reckon titles (if they were relevant) would reflect this. The Emperor in Sari could include "Seat of the Shahanshah" in descriptions of the city, with Constantinople doing similar things "Shining Star of Europe and Asia" (I can't recall when Asia referred to modern Asia, or when it just referred to the bits near Europe, so that might be a bad example).
 
Effectively, we're taking advantage of a Persia in disarray, that IOTL was conquered by the Arabs. I see no reason why in a scenario where they don't,

I see what you mean, fam, but how likely are the Romans to replicate the honestly almost-ridiculous success of the Rashidun? This isn't the Battle of Antioch, this is a fight against armies trained and equipped to whoop Romans who are battling in their home territory. The Romans probably wouldn't be making the same outreach to the Lakhmid Arabs that the Rashidun were (it seems like the Lakhmids had astutely recognized that life as a religious minority in the ol' ERE kinda blew) so they wouldn't have the benefit of revolting Arabs scouting and supplying them like Khalid did. IMO, the TTL scenario of a Roman conquest and the OTL scenario of the Muslim conquests are entirely different ball games.
 
I see what you mean, fam, but how likely are the Romans to replicate the honestly almost-ridiculous success of the Rashidun? This isn't the Battle of Antioch, this is a fight against armies trained and equipped to whoop Romans who are battling in their home territory. The Romans probably wouldn't be making the same outreach to the Lakhmid Arabs that the Rashidun were (it seems like the Lakhmids had astutely recognized that life as a religious minority in the ol' ERE kinda blew) so they wouldn't have the benefit of revolting Arabs scouting and supplying them like Khalid did. IMO, the TTL scenario of a Roman conquest and the OTL scenario of the Muslim conquests are entirely different ball games.

Facetious bit : I don't have the variables for my alternate timeline predictive mathematics.

I'm just discussing one possibility, because I don't like ideas being shut down.

But yeah, they are different ball games, I'm just focusing there on "It was in disarray, it doesn't HAVE to be an overwhelming force" Look at the conquest of India, or other fractured regions by outside forces. Its plenty possible.

It also may well end up being slower - I see it a perfectly plausible possibility of a Roman-Aligned Western Persia fighting an Afghan/Baluchi Eastern Persia.

But it could also be faster, say a Julius Caesar scenario where this commander does use primarily Persian forces - I'd expect that to be the case IMO.
 
I am very VERY much aware. Hence the strategic value in reforging it. The power vacuum itself is as dangerous as Persia, because you have no idea who will fill it. However, quoting below, as I largely agree with the analysis. (Ignoring the last two sentences).



Effectively, we're taking advantage of a Persia in disarray, that IOTL was conquered by the Arabs. I see no reason why in a scenario where they don't, the Romans couldn't undertake the effort, if done right. A Roman-Persia that includes Iranians, backed by the Romans immediately has an advantage over others, even if it also has disadvantages. There are also considerable compromises that the Romans would have to make.

Its advantage is a backer (as it is fundamentally still PART of the Roman Empire), and as such is able to guarantee security against them long term, and has no Western Threat. That is HUGE in my opinion.

Disadvantages/Compromises include Nestorians and Zoroastrians, and needing to accept them, not merely tolerate them. It could be that this 'Eastern Roman Empire' becomes Nestorian, or brings Nestorian thought back into debate. It would also have to accept Zoroastrians long term without prejudice. Easy enough to do as the society already accepts it, you just have to ensure that you're not discriminating against them too overtly. (The Jizya was tolerated.. so why not?)

But no bones about it, besides my earlier suggestion of colonising the Mazandaran region - this state is overwhelmingly Persian, with Greek at most becoming an Elite Language or Lingua Franca. Its armies are Persian, its signs are in Persian, it'd likely describe itself as Iran, or some variant of that. This isn't Alexander the Great colonising Persia. This is reuniting an Empire under another - much like the Arabs did under the Caliphate. Hence why I say you're reforging an Empire in this scenario.

I reckon titles (if they were relevant) would reflect this. The Emperor in Sari could include "Seat of the Shahanshah" in descriptions of the city, with Constantinople doing similar things "Shining Star of Europe and Asia" (I can't recall when Asia referred to modern Asia, or when it just referred to the bits near Europe, so that might be a bad example).

The problem is that the ERE too is exhausted after the war. It has to reintegrate Syria and Egypt. It has to organize the thema system and maybe deal with religious question. It has to deal with the Balkans. It doesnt have the will or the manpower to conquer and hold Persia around 630. As I said without the parthian dynasties rebelling it might not have regained its lost territories at all.

Compared to these OTL arab conquerors were fresh, had a lot of bodies to threw at the Persians and had the will to do it. They also had pretty good leadership and tactics that were particularly effective against the Sassanids.

I dont say that a fresh Byzantium couldnt do it to an exhausted and falling apart Persia however they simply are not in that situation. And I dont think Persia will stay week long enough for the Byzantines to come in and conquer it. They could however use the respite to recuperate and solve a lot of their many smaller problems which will make the inevitable next round against the Persians easier on them.
 
The problem is that the ERE too is exhausted after the war. It has to reintegrate Syria and Egypt. It has to organize the thema system and maybe deal with religious question. It has to deal with the Balkans. It doesnt have the will or the manpower to conquer and hold Persia around 630. As I said without the parthian dynasties rebelling it might not have regained its lost territories at all.

Compared to these OTL arab conquerors were fresh, had a lot of bodies to threw at the Persians and had the will to do it. They also had pretty good leadership and tactics that were particularly effective against the Sassanids.

I dont say that a fresh Byzantium couldnt do it to an exhausted and falling apart Persia however they simply are not in that situation. And I dont think Persia will stay week long enough for the Byzantines to come in and conquer it. They could however use the respite to recuperate and solve a lot of their many smaller problems which will make the inevitable next round against the Persians easier on them.

I have two counters.

1) Recovery, who will be quicker? One is exhausted, the other is Exhausted and has been in civil war. I'll say the Romans are likely to recover more quickly, and can take advantage.

2) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khosrow_II#Invasion_and_defeat_by_the_Byzantine_Empire

Heraclius, at this time, had repeatedly invaded Persia. The idea that the Romans couldn't do this once the anarchy begins and use that to establish the beginnings of a Romano-Iranian Eastern Empire seems to undermine what the Romans could have done, even if it only starts by annexing Mesopotamia during the Anarchy. (EDIT : and it may not even be that a Roman Persia is the goal, but just the result of opportunities taken)
 
Effectively, we're taking advantage of a Persia in disarray, that IOTL was conquered by the Arabs. I see no reason why in a scenario where they don't, the Romans couldn't undertake the effort, if done right. A Roman-Persia that includes Iranians, backed by the Romans immediately has an advantage over others, even if it also has disadvantages. There are also considerable compromises that the Romans would have to make.
The Arabs has unity, religious fervor and limited fronts (only Syria and Mesopotamia) whereas as Rome has religious disputes all over the Empire and just got from a destructive war that ravaged some of its wealthiest provinces and have to deal with problems all over (Lombards in Italy, Avars/Slavs in the Balkans and Turks on the north), most importantly the Arabs had innovative military tactics, like the heavy use of light cavalry to increase maneuver and grind the enemy, the invading Roman army will the same thing the Iranians have had been fighting since forever, they wouldn't make much beyond Ctesiphon and gains'll be temporary.

FYI Heraclius already tried to have a puppet semi-Christian Iranian Empire by supporting Sharhbaraz depose Ardashir III and become Shahashah, he didn't move a finger when was murdered 2 months later.
 
Heraclius, at this time, had repeatedly invaded Persia. The idea that the Romans couldn't do this once the anarchy begins and use that to establish the beginnings of a Romano-Iranian Eastern Empire seems to undermine what the Romans could have done, even if it only starts by annexing Mesopotamia during the Anarchy.

Glorified raids that didn't even reach Tesifon - and if the Romans could have taken Persia during a period of anarchy why didn't they? If Heraclius could have kept going, he would have, I think. He more or less passed up his chance to truly defeat Persia. Most probably because such a chance was an illusion at best.

Of the Parthian families, at least several are still in good shape and, as happened the last time the Sassanians were in a state of anarchy, may well come to the rescue of the state rather than choose to elevate themselves as many in this thread have postulated.

To your arguments about recovery, who had their territories invaded and occupied for decades and who just got raided a few times in the last year's - raids which didn't touch the heartlands? Even if Mesopotamia is where the money is, Iran is still the heart of the empire, particularly in terms of where the cavalry are drawn from.

To be frank, I just don't think this is the right time period for it. Your last even possible chance for a Roman takeover of the Iranian plateau is probably circa Trajan, and even he couldn't hack it OTL.
 
most importantly the Arabs had innovative military tactics, like the heavy use of light cavalry to increase maneuver and grind the enemy, the invading Roman army will the same thing the Iranians have had been fighting since forever,

Yup. I don't mean to be a full-time cheerleader for the Rashidun here, but Persia wasn't just ripe for the picking by anyone. A politically weak Sassanid Empire is still a military juggernaut. Abu Ubaidah, Muthanna, and Khalid were also better tacticians than Heraclius' boys (which I mean, is pretty obvious, seeing as they proceeded to stomp him at Yarmouk.)
 
The Arabs has unity, religious fervor and limited fronts (only Syria and Mesopotamia) whereas as Rome has religious disputes all over the Empire and just got from a destructive war that ravaged some of its wealthiest provinces and have to deal with problems all over (Lombards in Italy, Avars/Slavs in the Balkans and Turks on the north), most importantly the Arabs had innovative military tactics, like the heavy use of light cavalry to increase maneuver and grind the enemy, the invading Roman army will the same thing the Iranians have had been fighting since forever, they wouldn't make much beyond Ctesiphon and gains'll be temporary.

FYI Heraclius already tried to have a puppet semi-Christian Iranian Empire by supporting Sharhbaraz depose Ardashir III and become Shahashah, he didn't move a finger when was murdered 2 months later.

Actually, thanks for this. I didn't realise that Sharhbaraz had a son who was later a Byzantine General. Niketas. It opens the doors for all sorts of interesting PoDs, including establishing him later on as a client Emperor.

Glorified raids that didn't even reach Tesifon - and if the Romans could have taken Persia during a period of anarchy why didn't they? If Heraclius could have kept going, he would have, I think. He more or less passed up his chance to truly defeat Persia. Most probably because such a chance was an illusion at best.

Of the Parthian families, at least several are still in good shape and, as happened the last time the Sassanians were in a state of anarchy, may well come to the rescue of the state rather than choose to elevate themselves as many in this thread have postulated.

To your arguments about recovery, who had their territories invaded and occupied for decades and who just got raided a few times in the last year's - raids which didn't touch the heartlands? Even if Mesopotamia is where the money is, Iran is still the heart of the empire, particularly in terms of where the cavalry are drawn from.

To be frank, I just don't think this is the right time period for it. Your last even possible chance for a Roman takeover of the Iranian plateau is probably circa Trajan, and even he couldn't hack it OTL.

To both of you, fair enough. I don't agree with your assessments, but I figured I'd at least say so than just ignore the quotes.
 
For those who continually mention the unity of the Arabs, this is not true.. The Muslim armies were not follower ants who inspired by Allah would do anything. This is an error and one brought to make the failure of the Sassanid logistical system and their armies, seem logical without concluding a firm weakness within Iran.
 
The problem is that the ERE too is exhausted after the war. It has to reintegrate Syria and Egypt. It has to organize the thema system and maybe deal with religious question.
Sorry if this is a bit anal, but I don't think the Theme System would exist if the Arab Conquests never happened. Although older scholarship tends to give Heraclius credit for establishing it, most scholars now are of the opinion that the Theme System was a product of Constans II and was something that developed slowly over the centuries due to the situation the Empire was in. Furthermore the Theme System wouldn't really make much sense if they retained all the Eastern provinces, and the massive wealth/manpower that came from said provinces.

As for the ongoing discussion here about whether the Romans would try to attack Persia due to their weakness, I think this is highly unlikely. The Romans were already overstretched as is, they wouldn't want to expand their borders and territory even more. They have to reintergate the Eastern provinces (which is a much harder process than most here seem to imply, There were people 20-30 years old at the end of the Roman-Persian War that lived in Syria or Egypt that had never been under Roman rule at all), they have to sort out the religious issues, they have to reestablish control over the Balkans. They have neither the time, resources or stability to take out Persia, unless Iran remains in perpetual civil war.

The ideal strategy, if they have the time and resources would be a divide and conquer strategy (Heraclius actually did do this in our timeline). I.e give money and resources to different factions of the civil war to drag it out as much as possible, assassinate leaders who could potentially bring back stability etc. This would make some of the factions indebted to the Romans, while preventing a strong power from re-emerging on the Iranian plateau to challenge them. If the Romans were to try and conquer Persian land, they'd only unite the Persians against them.
 
Last edited:
I disagree with the idea the Byzantine could have lasted. Colonialism will weaken the Byzantines. The Sassanid Empire will be weakened as well, but not as much as the navigating of African to India.

As the value of the silk road plummets, the power of these two empires will too. If they can both make it till the 1700s liberal agitation and growing nationalism will most likely rip them apart, in the same way the Ottoman Empire did OTL. The only reason the Ottomans lasted so long was the backing of other Global Powers. I don't see how the others can last.
 
I disagree with the idea the Byzantine could have lasted. Colonialism will weaken the Byzantines. The Sassanid Empire will be weakened as well, but not as much as the navigating of African to India
I think it's pretty naive to assume the Age of Exploration even happens in this timeline. Pretty much everything in the modern era is potentially butterflied here. Let alone that if it still happens, the Romans and Persians don't get involved.
 
I am very VERY much aware. Hence the strategic value in reforging it. The power vacuum itself is as dangerous as Persia, because you have no idea who will fill it. However, quoting below, as I largely agree with the analysis. (Ignoring the last two sentences).



Effectively, we're taking advantage of a Persia in disarray, that IOTL was conquered by the Arabs. I see no reason why in a scenario where they don't, the Romans couldn't undertake the effort, if done right. A Roman-Persia that includes Iranians, backed by the Romans immediately has an advantage over others, even if it also has disadvantages. There are also considerable compromises that the Romans would have to make.

Its advantage is a backer (as it is fundamentally still PART of the Roman Empire), and as such is able to guarantee security against them long term, and has no Western Threat. That is HUGE in my opinion.

Disadvantages/Compromises include Nestorians and Zoroastrians, and needing to accept them, not merely tolerate them. It could be that this 'Eastern Roman Empire' becomes Nestorian, or brings Nestorian thought back into debate. It would also have to accept Zoroastrians long term without prejudice. Easy enough to do as the society already accepts it, you just have to ensure that you're not discriminating against them too overtly. (The Jizya was tolerated.. so why not?)

But no bones about it, besides my earlier suggestion of colonising the Mazandaran region - this state is overwhelmingly Persian, with Greek at most becoming an Elite Language or Lingua Franca. Its armies are Persian, its signs are in Persian, it'd likely describe itself as Iran, or some variant of that. This isn't Alexander the Great colonising Persia. This is reuniting an Empire under another - much like the Arabs did under the Caliphate. Hence why I say you're reforging an Empire in this scenario.

I reckon titles (if they were relevant) would reflect this. The Emperor in Sari could include "Seat of the Shahanshah" in descriptions of the city, with Constantinople doing similar things "Shining Star of Europe and Asia" (I can't recall when Asia referred to modern Asia, or when it just referred to the bits near Europe, so that might be a bad example).

Rome would not be able to hold down Persia - they were overstretched already regarding the conquest of Italy, Africa, and Spania, they were undergoing dynastic conflict themselves (the Maurice-Phocas-Heraclius transition was not smooth), and, unlike the Arabs, they did not have the unique demographic pressure and religious fervour that made Arabic clans settle in the Iranian plateau and begin Islamising the territory. A Greek conquest of Iran would have the mobeds and the entire population at arms, since they would be seen as a rehash of Alexander (in Iran, that is NOT a good thing). Nestorian were very much NOT accepted in Rome, so they wouldn't even be able to count on aid from the Syriac population, nor from the Jews of Ctesiphon, and much less on Zoroastrians, who literally saw on Alexander the Great and the people that tried to follow his example an agent of Angra Mainyu. And, unlike in Rome, the dihqan system meant that wealth was not centred only in the Parthian dynasties but also in an extremely powerful mobed class as well as in the very peasants, so it's not like taking out a few heads could end Iranian hegemony.

Even if they managed to get the Parthians on their side and take over Iran (say they get the Mihrans on their side, since they seemed to worship Mihra as a God and not as an angel), the Parthian dynasties were not particularly known for loyalty, and any one of them could break the grasp of an overextended, radically foreign empire, with either Gökturk aid (the Sassanids and Mihrans were not shy of asking for aid from a Turkic tribes before), or by themselves once a Roman emperor goes in one of their inevitable 'let's defeat the Slavs once and for all' campaigns and take enough garrisons off Iran. And when that happens, the Empire will have pulled a Trajan and replaced a collapsing dynastic system with a freshly created and powerful new one.
 
Also, the phrasing of the question already stacks the cards.
Compare to:
How much longer would the Heracleiad and Sassanid Empires have lasted without the Arab conquests?
 
I think it's pretty naive to assume the Age of Exploration even happens in this timeline. Pretty much everything in the modern era is potentially butterflied here. Let alone that if it still happens, the Romans and Persians don't get involved.

I think it's still fairly likely that Europeans will try to conquer the Americas. The timeline and nature of that conquest could be very different though.
 

ar-pharazon

Banned
Regarding the age of exploration, ship building technology and navigation techniques will advance in the next millennium Islam or no Islam.

How the Byzantines fair in alt 15th-16th century world is really dependant on what that world is actually like, how strong the Byzantines are, what the geopolitical situation in the Mediterranean is, etc...

I could see the Byzantines trying for an Indian Ocean policy-getting into the money spigot that is India and its surrounding locations.
 
Top