Longer Byzantine–Sasanian War impact on Muslim conquests

Could the Byzantine–Sasanian of 602–628 War last another 6 years or 7 years

What would be the impact on Muslim conquests
 
Could the Byzantine–Sasanian of 602–628 War last another 6 years or 7 years

What would be the impact on Muslim conquests

Why would it? Both empires fought to exhaustion. It's difficult to see how either side could have continued much longer.

I suppose extending the war simply means that the Byzantines are that much weaker, as Persia got fully conquered anyway. Maybe Constantinople falls to the Arabs?

That has an impact on world history. Perhaps Christianity dies out. Islam becomes the unchallenged dominant Abrahamic religion. An Islamic world domination is the likely result.
 
It's possible that such a war would be more locked down between Romania and Persia, rather than a clear Roman victory that allowed an eventual peace IOTL. Meaning both a more militarized border and possibly less vulnerable Persia.
 
I suppose extending the war simply means that the Byzantines are that much weaker, as Persia got fully conquered anyway.
Persia got conquered less because it was inherently weaker, but because the war was decisively won by Romans, the relative quick latter part of the war being attributable to being invaded with subsequent consequences on dynastic stability and state credibility.
A longer war strongly implies that neither side is able to decisively win, possibly ending with more of a stalemate than IOTL, making the border regions both more militarized and Persia less weakened than IOTL (in spite of "being conquered anyway" historically, Sassanians did managed to hold an efficient enough resistence against Arabs initially, and it was not a given that they had to be utterly defeated IOTL, so ITTL possibly less so).
 
It's possible that such a war would be more locked down between Romania and Persia, rather than a clear Roman victory that allowed an eventual peace IOTL. Meaning both a more militarized border and possibly less vulnerable Persia.
The vulnerability of Persia IOTL was not due to lack of trying. Persia had utterly exhausted its resources by the end of the war and was locked in civil war. A longer war would only exacerbate these problems and might result in an even easier conquest of Iran with local warlords vying for control.
 
A longer war would only exacerbate these problems and might result in an even easier conquest of Iran with local warlords vying for control.
Again, not necessarily : Byzantium had similar problems going on with a great effort put into fighting Persians including dynastical instability and coups, and still managed to not being swallowed up in one piece.

EDIT : In fact, it could be argued there would be maybe (in one of the best scenarii possible for Persia) such situation could be used by Parthian dynasties ITTL, allowing one of their rulers to pull an Heraclius, a reason for making the war longer.
 
The Arab would be more like the mongosl in Thai scenario with them taking over all of Byzantine and Persians and with it prob being less bloody invasion of them well let say the have the whole world open to them
 
Top