No Arab invasions: How do Byzantium and Persia develop?

[Fabius Maximus]

Either Muhammad never succeeds in uniting the Arabian Peninsula, or his successors are unable to keep it united after he dies. Regardless, the Arabs are far too disunited to contemplate any foreign conquest sprees.

How, in such a scenario, would the Byzantine and Persian Empires develop? The Byzantine-Persian War had ended in 628, with the Persians coming off decidedly worse and going through a period of major instability. Would this be solved, or would they dissolve into a mass of warring states? As for the Byzantines, they were in a better shape, but the Empire was bankrupt and its human and economic resources had been seriously depleted. Would Heraclius seek a period of peace, or would he try and take advantage of Persian weakness to expand the Empire, either pushing into the east or trying to retake territory in the Balkans? And in the longer term, how would Mediterranean and Persian culture and society develop without the rise of Islam?

 

[UCB79]

Wow- this is as big a question as asking how
Europe would have developed without
Christianity! But I'll take a small stab @ an
answer & state Byzantium would have lived
longer(how much longer I just can't say-
but another century @ least). This is be-
cause if there was just one event which
doomed it, it was the sack of Constantinople
by the men of The Fourth Crusade in 1204
IOTL. Butterfly away Islam, you have no
Arab control of the Mid-east. Ending that was
the aim of the crusades. So now ITTL there's
no reason for the Crusades. No crusades, no
1204 attack. It was a blow that Byzantium
never recovered from. Butterfly it away...
To employ an old cliche, it's like a row of
dominos falling....

 

[DominusNovus]

You have Byzantium retaining Syria and Egypt and N. Africa. The Mediterranean trade network survives, the Byzantine economy survives, and their army survives. Their short-medium term goal would be to restore control over the Balkans and Italy. Give it a century or so. If the Visigoths decline on schedule, they’re going to want to interfere there, and might recover the peninsula. Their worst case in that regard is the Franks beating them to it, but they still had troubles integrating Aquitania in this period. From there, they’d probably spend another century or two deciding on how badly they want Gaul back. Southern Gaul makes sense, and the north is being visited by the Vikings, both a reason to stay away and an opportunity to secure the south.

As for the Sassanids, they probably could recover without too much trouble, it seems they had a relatively robust state at this time, they just had the misfortune of being attacked while exhausted, and with theit indispensible land in Mesopotamia right on the front door of their invaders - Syria and Egypt were important to the Byzantines, but they could survive without them far better than the Sassanids could without Mesopotamia. In this scenario, they’ll probably continue along pretty much like always. There’s a reason, after all, that that general dynamic of Rome v Persia went on for over 600 years, and the border was pretty nigh on identical to where it was when they started.

 

[Monter]

As for the Sassanids, they probably could recover without too much trouble, it seems they had a relatively robust state at this time, they just had the misfortune of being attacked while exhausted, and with theit indispensible land in Mesopotamia right on the front door of their invaders - Syria and Egypt were important to the Byzantines, but they could survive without them far better than the Sassanids could without Mesopotamia. In this scenario, they’ll probably continue along pretty much like always. There’s a reason, after all, that that general dynamic of Rome v Persia went on for over 600 years, and the border was pretty nigh on identical to where it was when they started.

The Sasanids were pretty much in a civil war with a teenager on the throne with no heirs, the economy destroyed and the Parthian clans creeping on power, you could probably see either a new dynasty taking place or Persia itself fragmenting (eventually reuniting or not).

 

[DominusNovus]

The Sasanids were pretty much in a civil war with a teenager on the throne with no heirs, the economy destroyed and the Parthian clans creeping on power, you could probably see either a new dynasty taking place or Persia itself fragmenting (eventually reuniting or not).

Agreed. I was being pretty broad by my definition. My main point was that a recognizably Persian state would persist.

 

[htgriffin]

Either Muhammad never succeeds in uniting the Arabian Peninsula, or his successors are unable to keep it united after he dies. Regardless, the Arabs are far too disunited to contemplate any foreign conquest sprees.

Something to keep in mind is that the demographic situation was ripe for a 'volkswanderung' coming up from Arabia with no political push needed. Odds are that Mesopotamia (the Sassanids are coming apart at the seams at the moment) and Levant (long term confessional issues with the Chalcedonian Emperors) are going to get overrun in any case.

Mind you, a Persian dynasty is likely to reunite the plateau; while Constantinople will put real military/political effort into keeping Egypt's grain and if they lose North Africa it will be to Berbers with various degrees of Latinization (Donatist, Jewish, or Chalcedonian is a toss-up)

 

[Indicus]

Most likely, Persia feudalizes. The Sassanids were already weakening, and I think a devolution of power to lords is highly plausible, with the Magi as the religious mesh that keeps together the country.

Persia certainly won’t be Christian, as nothing short of a two hundred year occupation could alter its religion from Zoroastrianism.

 

[Gloss]

Most likely, Persia feudalizes. The Sassanids were already weakening, and I think a devolution of power to lords is highly plausible, with the Magi as the religious mesh that keeps together the country.

Persia certainly won’t be Christian, as nothing short of a two hundred year occupation could alter its religion from Zoroastrianism.

I don't know, with Christian communities all over Mesopotamia and with the Christian control of Georgia and Armenia I can see Christianity making inroads in Persia, at least in some of the more peripherical areas and possibly among some of the local feudal-like lords.

 

[Gloss]

Something to keep in mind is that the demographic situation was ripe for a 'volkswanderung' coming up from Arabia with no political push needed. Odds are that Mesopotamia (the Sassanids are coming apart at the seams at the moment) and Levant (long term confessional issues with the Chalcedonian Emperors) are going to get overrun in any case.

Mind you, a Persian dynasty is likely to reunite the plateau; while Constantinople will put real military/political effort into keeping Egypt's grain and if they lose North Africa it will be to Berbers with various degrees of Latinization (Donatist, Jewish, or Chalcedonian is a toss-up)

Why exactly is that so inevitable? Where was this push coming from?

 

[Deleted member 97083]

Persia has been conquered more times in its history than most regions in the world. I wouldn't expect the Byzantines to try to conquer Persia, but it's not impossible for them to do so.

The Byzantine Empire of Heraklius had finally come out on its own as an eastern centered empire and was focused on rebuilding. The Rome vs. Persia dynamic could remain the same as it was before... but the eastern focused Byzantium that has given up on Justinian's conquests, was almost pushed to annihilation by Khosrau II, and has now recovered, may have a different perspective. It depends on how pragmatic following emperors are.

Something to keep in mind is that the demographic situation was ripe for a 'volkswanderung' coming up from Arabia with no political push needed. Odds are that Mesopotamia (the Sassanids are coming apart at the seams at the moment) and Levant (long term confessional issues with the Chalcedonian Emperors) are going to get overrun in any case.

The Byzantines lost distinctly because they were exhausted by years of war with the Persians. But they were not static. In the last years before Yarmouk, Heraklius was making concerted effort to rebuild fortifications and restore Roman control in Syria. If the Romans had a further decade or so to recuperate, then they have the logistic advantage on their own turf in defending Syria, Volkswanderung or not.

Here's a relevant passage from Byzantium and the Early Islamic Conquests (1995) by Walter Kaegi:

"Islamic tribesmen did not simply overrun a static and gravely weakened Byzantine Empire. Instead, their invasions occurred while Byzantium was still in the process of restoring her authority over the full extent of the former eastern borders of her empire. Heraclius was in that region because he was personally involved in overseeing that restoration and reunification. If he had had more time, he might have succeeded. The Muslim invasions caught him and the empire off balance at a very awkward time, and kept them off balance. The exertion of minimal pressure at the critical moment and place was able to bring the Muslims maximal rewards in terms of military victories and territorial conquests, with a minimum of casualties. The Byzantines were just restoring their authority in the Syrian cities and countryside, but that process of restoration and creation of lines of authority and a viable power structure with conscious identification with Byzantium was even more tenuous in the areas east of Jordan and the Dead Sea when the Muslims began their own probes and raiding, which they very soon greatly intensified." (pg. 87)

 

[Indicus]

I don't know, with Christian communities all over Mesopotamia and with the Christian control of Georgia and Armenia I can see Christianity making inroads in Persia, at least in some of the more peripherical areas and possibly among some of the local feudal-like lords.

I can see it becoming the majority religion in Mesopotamia if it wasn’t already that, but east of the Zagros? Not a chance.

 

[Deleted member 97083]

I can see it becoming the majority religion in Mesopotamia if it wasn’t already that, but east of the Zagros? Not a chance.

Christianity was already the majority religion in Mesopotamia, and Aramaic the majority language.

 

[Indicus]

Christianity was already the majority religion in Mesopotamia, and Aramaic the majority language.

That is true, but I am speaking of the Iranic parts of the empire, which became the cultural centre of the empire under the Sassanids with the present-day dialect of Persian being standardized as the literary dialect.

 

[Deleted member 97083]

That is true, but I am speaking of the Iranic parts of the empire, which became the cultural centre of the empire under the Sassanids with the present-day dialect of Persian being standardized as the literary dialect.

If Islam could spread into Persia by conquest, why couldn't Christianity spread into Persia by conquest? If the Sassanids decline into civil war, feuding, and corrupt dynastic politics, it doesn't seem unfeasible for a recuperated Byzantine Empire in 680 or 700 AD. It's not the most probable possibility, but Persia has been conquered many times in history.

List of pre-modern conquests of Persia:

1. Medians
2. Achaemenids
3. Greeks
4. Seleucids
5. Parthians
6. Sassanids
7. Umayyads
8. Abbasids
9. Samanids
10. Buyids
11. Ghaznavids
12. Seljuqs
13. Khwarezmids
14. Mongols
15. Timurids
16. Aq Qoyunlu
17. Safavids
18. Afsharids
19. Zand
20. Qajar
21. Pahlavi

Now some of these were endogenous, but it's not exactly impossible to conquer Persia. The Byzantine Empire centered in Constantinople, and having lost the western ambitions of Justinian, is fundamentally different to the Roman Empire in previous eras in its willingness to commit forces in the east. In an ATL where they survive or avert the Arab conquests, everything is different.

 

[Indicus]

If Islam could spread into Persia by conquest, why couldn't Christianity spread into Persia by conquest?

It was really difficult for Islam to spread into Persia at all. It took the so-called “Two Centuries of Shame” for Islam to spread at all, and you would need special circumstances to replicate that in a no-Islam scenario. I’m afraid I don’t understand why you want Christian Persia so badly.

 

[Deleted member 97083]

It was really difficult for Islam to spread into Persia at all. It took the so-called “Two Centuries of Shame” for Islam to spread at all, and you would need special circumstances to replicate that in a no-Islam scenario. I’m afraid I don’t understand why you want Christian Persia so badly.

I didn't say I wanted a Christian Persia. My point is that it's not impossible to conquer Persia, it has been one of the most frequently conquered regions in the world IOTL. People are too quick to say "ASB" or "zero chance".

 

[Pellaeon]

I think Christianity would make in roads through Persian queens and empresses influencing their sons and general missionary activity-it would be a longer process and Zoroastrianism would remain for a long time but Christianity was spreading farthe and farther into the east.

I like to think in the abscence of the Arab invasions the Byzantines successfully assimilate or repulse the Slavic migrations into the Balkans. They'd be on uneasy footing given the cost of the war but Perisa would be far worse for ware.

The Sassanids might collapse into civil war and a devolution into feudalism perhaps with greater raids and invasions from the Turkic khaganates from the north.

I think the Byzantines hold in the Mediterranean world would be maintained though they'd have to fight the Visigoths who had their own problems and they'd do fine in Italy.

Contact with the Christians kingdoms of Ethiopia and Nubia would be maintained and I think the Byzantines would whether the 8th-10th centuries fine.

I think in Europe Christianity would continue to spread and the feudal system would continue to stabilize win the last of the migrations ending and Magyars settling in Hungary Europe would grow again.

Tang China would continue to spread its clout in Central Asia and I admittedly don't know much about India in this time period-perhaps it would reunite under one empire at some point or another.

Without Islam utterly smashing the board of world history as it were I think the political, religious, demographic, and economic trajectories would have continued.

Perhaps the Byzantines would make and sustain contact with the Tang and history would go from there.

 

[Indicus]

I didn't say I wanted a Christian Persia. My point is that it's not impossible to conquer Persia, it has been one of the most frequently conquered regions in the world IOTL. People are too quick to say "ASB" or "zero chance".

I agree. People are too quick in stating that Zoroastrianism had “zero chance” to stick, or that Persia would inevitably become Christian because apparently it is the inevitable movement of all people to become Christian. Zoroastrianism was not, contrary to belief, a dying religion. It was the staunch religion of the Iranic peoples, and it certainly won’t become a minority religion without a fight.

 

[Indicus]

I think Christianity would make in roads through Persian queens and empresses influencing their sons and general missionary activity-it would be a longer process and Zoroastrianism would remain for a long time but Christianity was spreading farthe and farther into the east.

I really don’t understand why this forum believes that Abrahamic religion would conquer the world in any scenario. I’m guessing a big part of it is that most people here are Christian and want their religion to do well.

 

[Deleted member 97083]

I agree. People are too quick in stating that Zoroastrianism had “zero chance” to stick, or that Persia would inevitably become Christian because apparently it is the inevitable movement of all people to become Christian.

That's certainly not what I said.