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.
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,
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 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 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.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.
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.
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,
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.
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.
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.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.
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 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 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).
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.