How powerful would a late antiquity neo-Achaemenid Empire be?

I have this idea for a Sassanid wank timeline where the Sassanids are able to roughly re-establish the borders of the Achaemenid Empire by the early 7th Century, due to better decisions on their part and some bad luck for the Romans. As a result the only power that was their equal is now dead and they control everything between Constantinople, Egypt, Oman and Central Asia and as a result there is no power in the region that can match them in terms of wealth and manpower and they have a near monopoly on all trade between Europe and Asia.

I was wondering where they went from their and how powerful they would be because it seems to me, from a solely geographical point of view, they would be almost unassailable and can pretty much expand in any given direction if they so chose.

The only real threats they face are from the Arabs, who, due to rising population and other factors, are due to start expanding and are situated right underneath their heartland and Turkic tribes from Central Asia who can threaten their hold over the Silk Road and can strike into Iran-proper. The former, however, don't have the advantage of attacking them when all the powers in the region are exhausted from decades of fighting and are too disunited to put up a united front and so probably won't be nearly as successful whilst the latter can be guarded against by stationing a few large armies in Central Asia which they should be more than able to afford at this point.

In terms of expansion options their control of Anatolia and the Bosporus gives them the ability to project power basically anywhere around the Balkans and Black Sea. Securing Greece would give them a spring-board into Italy. If these adventures go badly they are able to do what the Byzantines and Ottomans did and just retreat across the Bosporus to regroup and retaliate. In addition their hold over the caucuses puts them into a good position to defend from attacks in that direction and protects their northern flank. From Egypt they can go south into East Africa by both land and sea at a time when IOTL the powers in the region were going into decline due to being cut off from international trade by the Arabs, which ITTL Persia could probably replicate, as well as climate change. North Africa might be a challenge, depending on their ability to develop a naval infrastructure, but not an impossible one and from there they can launch raids into Southern Europe, although, if a power in Souther Europe is able to develop a stronger navy first they could potentially cut them off there. To the east they have India which is fabulously wealthy, politically divided and they have the advantage of attacking from the Hindu Kush, incidentally the place that every foreign power that conquered vast swaths of India, except for the British who started in Bengal and moved West, began their campaigns from, which means that they can retreat to safety if things go badly.

In short they are immensely wealthy, immensely populous, occupy territory which is ideal for attacking other people from and there are no powers in the region that can equal them.

Is there something I'm missing that would stop this timeline becoming a perpetual Persian wank where they roflstomp everyone from Spain to Bengal?
 
Disunity and discontent combined with logistics, I guess. I mean, at this point Anatolia is Hellenized, and it and Greece are probably hotbeds of rebellion. If the empire’s tolerant (which IIRC the Sassanids could be) that would help, but it doesn’t stop uppity people with delusions of Alexander from acting up.

Logistics are the real problem—how will the Sassanids avoid having rebellions pop up in farflung regions?
 
On the cultural front I can see them taking great pains to develop some sort of hybrid Greco-Perisan culture not unlike what Alexander the Great and the Selucid and early Arsacid dynasties attempted. Hell it's arguably what the Romans did to, albeit they established a Greco-Roman civilisation. I can also see them trying to present themselves as the successor to the Roman Empire, which the Ottomans somewhat attempted IOTL.

On the religion front absorbing the Eastern Roman Empire means they have taken on a lot of Christians. Arguably Christianity would become the majority religion. At the same time, however, Eastern Christianity was incredibly divided at this time. You had Orthodox, Monothosite, Monothelite, Miaphysite and Nestorian varieties and possibly even a few Arians hiding under some rocks. And of course there are always new heresies and schisms that can arise, such as Paulicianism. On the one hand they could convert to Christianity, which wouldn't be too unrealistic given that it was quite stroong amongst the merchant classes, had supporters in the nobility and several OTL Shahs may have been crypto-Christians themselves, but this has the disadvantage of upsetting all the non-Christians and eventually having to deal with sectarianism. On the other hand they could double down on religious toleration, which could undermine and upset the state religion and means that they might have a 5th column problem but also means that they can play the different sects against each other.

One possible vulnerability they might have could be disease. If they're sitting on every major trade route between Asia and Europe, and presumably also putting in the time and resources to maintain and upgrade the infrastructure, then all manner of pathogens could spread and breed throughout their empire. In addition the Sassanids were enthusiastic urbanisers and putting loads of people together in one place is a good recipe for breeding new diseases.

There's also the economic dislocation that could happen if China decides to go isolationist.
 
Knowing a bit more due to our inbox chat whilst not wanting to give too much away, I would say the main weakness which would eventually be exploited is the royal family.

Whilst the reforms we've talked about do lead to a much stronger Persian state, it is also a state super dependant on its monarch. One instance of unclear succession during a moment of Arab and Turkic pushing and the system will struggle.

Perhaps ironically, a Turkic people who come in and take over could pull something similar to the Sassanid vision of a reborn Achaemanid Empire with the Parthian instead, having the more hands off approag of the Parthians whilst the successor state is led by the "new aristocracy" for lack of a better term without spoiling it.
 
On the cultural front I can see them taking great pains to develop some sort of hybrid Greco-Perisan culture not unlike what Alexander the Great and the Selucid and early Arsacid dynasties attempted. Hell it's arguably what the Romans did to, albeit they established a Greco-Roman civilisation. I can also see them trying to present themselves as the successor to the Roman Empire, which the Ottomans somewhat attempted IOTL.

I guess this is reasonable, but there will always be the legacy of the Greco-Persian Wars to cause resentment among the Greeks. Presenting themselves as the new Romans may well work better—maybe the rise of the Sassanids could happen after the establishment of the ERE. That way if they conquer it outright they can claim to be the new Rome; however, this comes with religious difficulties.

On the religion front absorbing the Eastern Roman Empire means they have taken on a lot of Christians. Arguably Christianity would become the majority religion. At the same time, however, Eastern Christianity was incredibly divided at this time. You had Orthodox, Monothosite, Monothelite, Miaphysite and Nestorian varieties and possibly even a few Arians hiding under some rocks. And of course there are always new heresies and schisms that can arise, such as Paulicianism. On the one hand they could convert to Christianity, which wouldn't be too unrealistic given that it was quite stroong amongst the merchant classes, had supporters in the nobility and several OTL Shahs may have been crypto-Christians themselves, but this has the disadvantage of upsetting all the non-Christians and eventually having to deal with sectarianism. On the other hand they could double down on religious toleration, which could undermine and upset the state religion and means that they might have a 5th column problem but also means that they can play the different sects against each other.

If the cultural hub remains in the West, it’s much more likely Persia will convert to some form of Christianity. I think it depends on whether the Persian Conquest of Rome is destructive like the Gothic War or not—if it is the Christian position in the Empire will be weak.

If they were to adopt Christianity, I’d expect it to be a highly regulated, imperialist practice that incorporated Zoroastrian traditions—a Persian version of the Roman Church.
 
Any example? Everything I read about the Sasanids are either hardcore Zoros or tolerant with interests. Religious tolerance for Christians in Eranshahr was prone to rather violent mood swings.
Yazdegerd I and Khosrau II were both very Christophilic, with the later also marrying a Christian, and were speculated by some of being secret Christians or wanting to convert. I also recently read that some Sassanid Shahs, I can't remember who exactly, also sponsored the building of churches in China.
 
Knowing a bit more due to our inbox chat whilst not wanting to give too much away, I would say the main weakness which would eventually be exploited is the royal family.

Whilst the reforms we've talked about do lead to a much stronger Persian state, it is also a state super dependant on its monarch. One instance of unclear succession during a moment of Arab and Turkic pushing and the system will struggle.

Perhaps ironically, a Turkic people who come in and take over could pull something similar to the Sassanid vision of a reborn Achaemanid Empire with the Parthian instead, having the more hands off approag of the Parthians whilst the successor state is led by the "new aristocracy" for lack of a better term without spoiling it.
Oooooh are you hoping to make a timeline?
 
Top