No Arab invasions: How do Byzantium and Persia develop?
- Thread starter Fabius Maximus
- Start date
Although I may harp on about it a bit much, there is another religion which has a strong chance to eventually thrive in Persia. Manichaeism.
It already survived well enough despite state persecution and became a mainstay religion along the silk road. IMO, a nomadic people (who seemed to enjoy Manichaeism both due to its ability to incorporate their beliefs and its popularity amongst the merchant caravans of the silk road) that eventually takes Persia from the Sassanid's could reasonably decide to sponsor it as a "Persian religion", its attractiveness to traders and potential expansion opportunities (Manichaeism would presumably still be doing OK in the Arabian peninsula with a butterflied Islam).
The religion certainly survived well enough despite impressive persecution and regularly came up again and again in environments that were hostile to it. Whilst I'm not suggesting that a Manichaeist Persia is what would happen (although this is far from outside the realm of possibility), I wouldn't be surprised if it was still around to the present day in Aug a tl.
It already survived well enough despite state persecution and became a mainstay religion along the silk road. IMO, a nomadic people (who seemed to enjoy Manichaeism both due to its ability to incorporate their beliefs and its popularity amongst the merchant caravans of the silk road) that eventually takes Persia from the Sassanid's could reasonably decide to sponsor it as a "Persian religion", its attractiveness to traders and potential expansion opportunities (Manichaeism would presumably still be doing OK in the Arabian peninsula with a butterflied Islam).
The religion certainly survived well enough despite impressive persecution and regularly came up again and again in environments that were hostile to it. Whilst I'm not suggesting that a Manichaeist Persia is what would happen (although this is far from outside the realm of possibility), I wouldn't be surprised if it was still around to the present day in Aug a tl.
One of my professors once drew a crude map of the Middle East and circled the shores of the Eastern Mediterranean and Iran. Whoever controls one of these two regions, she said, would be destined to fight whoever controls the other for control of everything in between. In my opinion she stretched it by using a modern example afterwards, but the geography of the region does suggest that the equivalents of the Sassanids and Byzantines will keep fighting for control of Mesopotamia. But this doesn't mean it will forever be the Romans and Sassanids, but it's likely their successors will continue this eternal dance.
Could the balance be disrupted? Sure. It's probable that the Persians and Romans will be at peace for the decades to come- they have far too much to worry about back home. People keep saying the Romans will "clean up Italy and the Balkans" but that sort of thing is easier said than done, as the Romans learned historically both before and after the Arab Conquests. Even if successful, they're not going to be in a good spot to attack Persia in that time, not when they already will be working to maintain control of their Eastern provinces. The Sassanids have some severe internal problems themselves, and that's not going to be result in just a few years' time. Besides, both clearly remember how long, brutal, and futile the most recent war was and won't want a repeat.
Pellaeon
Banned
Indeed the dynamic was repeated both before and afterwards with the Roman's and Parthians, Assyrians and Elamites, Ottomans and Safavids etc... Seems the region's geography and strategic location makes it very much a border zone.
I mean if the Byzantines are broken from an invasion from Europe or the Sassanids are broken from an invasion by the Gokturks or someone else in Central Asia that could disrupt things?
There's always the possibility of disrupting it. The point is it's pretty much impossible to end it. If both are conquered, after another few generations their conquerors will be fighting each other.
I also think that immediately following the final Roman-Sassanian War, we'll see a prolonged period of peace in the region for the immediate future, if only because of how busy both will be. This isn't without historical precedent, after all- from 387 to 502 the two sides were at peace except for minor skirmishes. But even if only one side recovers enough the wars will resume, especially if it's the Persians. One thing you repeatedly notice in the Persian-Roman conflicts is that after the Roman Empire was established, it was typically Persia that started things, while the Romans wanted to focus on other theaters of war. So I'd predict the wars will start up again once Persia is ready, and not before.
Pellaeon
Banned
Which according to estimates in the thread won't be for at least 25-30 years.
If the Gokturks invade from Persia's northeast could they relieve pressure on the Byzantine frontier?
If I were the Romans, I'd be concerned that they could conquer Persia and attack them not long after. Assuming they're just seeking loot, though, it definitely could.
But it's not like the Romans don't have more conflicts to worry about. You have the Slavs in the Balkans, which needs to be fully settled at a time when Roman manpower is low. You have the Lombards in Italy who are fairly entrenched by this point. In the South, you still have the Arabs and Berbers to worry about, who might not be quite as explosive as the OTL Arab Conquests but could still cause a lot of trouble if enough of them unite and turn on Rome. You have the Visigoths who are slowly strengthening themselves and will want the last Roman possessions in Spain. You have problems of debt and even more nomads coming into the Balkans when your army and population has been brought down by years of war and plague.
Long term, Persia might come out better, as @Soverihn pointed out their Eastern flank is actually pretty safe at the moment; the Turks are always dangerous but as was recently shown they can turn against the Romans too. It's very hard to tell either way; and if as some have theorized the Arabs engage in some smaller conquests anyways due to overpopulation that's another element thrown in there.
My prediction? You see the Persians and Romans recover, but Rome especially is embattled both by new nomads, and peoples like the Visigoths and Lombards becoming more politically organized. There's no way in hell Chalcedonian Christianity dominates the world, there's gonna be some rival that rises almost as high. Whether that is an alternate branch like Nestorianism, or a Christian-influenced religion like Manicheanism or Islam, or an established religion like Budhism or Zoroastrianism, or any combination of those, Chalcedonian Christianity will not spread from Iberia to China. Especially interesting to me would be if the Romans succeed and enforce Chalcedonianism throughout the Mediterranean, would a Northern European version of Christianity, like Celtic Christianity, eventually split off into its own thing? Keep in mind I'm spitballing on that last part, as I know next to nothing on the variations of Christianity in Northern Europe at this time besides Arianism.
raharris1973
Gone Fishin'
Interesting argument, although I would hasten to add that in the Roman Empire and post-Roman world, Christianity was more popular with the prosperous and urban than with the poor and rural. (see works of Rodney Stark)
I get this about individuals being different, but there is probably something more like a 1-in-5 chance that a male child, named Constans, with a lot of genetic similarity to OTL's Constans, and a similar upbringing by the same parents, ends up being broadly the same as OTL's Constans in the ways that history cares about.
All alternate history babies while being different individual snowflakes from those in other timelines are still the brothers and sisters of their OTL selves at the first generation if born of the same couples.
PhilippeO
Banned
Those Region is united under Seleucid, Umayyad and Abassid. and possibly under Saladin and Tigranes Armenia. Seleucid build cities connecting Orontes-Euphrates (Jazirah? region) and build caravan route and managed to make area between Orontes-Euhphrates base of their power. Aramaic language also widespread and dominate that region. Even under pre-Baath rule, Aleppo-Deir ez-Zor -Mosul allegedly have much connection through trade and tribal ties. so while Levant/Medditerranean - Mesopotamia/Persia conflict is dominant in that region history, Jazirah based power is possible but unlikely.
Woaah, Brothers and Sisters can have massively different personality.
Muhammad's successors failing to keep his conquests together was also suggested as a potential POD, so Constans could well end up being born ITTL.
It would be difficult for a European invader to break the Byzantines, as most of their wealth came from their southern and eastern provinces.
Celtic Christianity was Catholic, and therefore Chalcedonian.
Pellaeon
Banned
All a European invader would have to do is seize Constantinople-it would be hard and probably unlikely given the era but the loss of the imperial capital would greatly destabilize the empire.
So was the Western and Eastern Churches in OTL. I should have been clear- if the Byzantines enforce their doctrinal differences ITTL, could Western Europe chafe under its influence and the doctrinal dispute be so great that they split off like the Schism in 1054?
This is Constantinople we are talking about. It is one of the most difficult to take cities there is. Even in the fifteenth century when cannons were brought to bear the city was a seriously tough nut to crack.
That said, you're right in that if someone did take it, it would be enough to break the stalemate easily. Though it would depend on the circumstances in the rest of the empire. The reason it was so devastating when the crusaders did it was because the empire was in a particularly brittle state.
Deleted member 67076
No one is taking Constantinople without naval supremacy in the Marmara and a massive army parked outside the city. No European power would have the capacity to do so- Not the Avars, Franks, Slavs, or Italians.
Pellaeon
Banned
What if some sort of Sassanid civil war occurs that results in all of the claimants ending up dead and the nobles retreating to their own domains basically shattering the Sassanid empire and allowing the Byzantines to play off the opposing factions at their leisure-maybe they can sack some Sassanid cities just to keep the situation under their control?
Technically the Visigoths would not be a problem because they had already reconquered the entire Iberian penninsula by the time the Roman-Sassanian war got into gear, thus Spain would already be lost and not affected by the POD.
The Empire's brittle state didn't help, although I think the main reason was that, after the Arab conquests, Constantinople was basically the Empire's only major city. If we're positing no Arab invasions, the Byzantines would still have Antioch and Alexandria and their hinterlands, so the loss of Constantinople, whilst it would be a heavy blow, wouldn't be as devastating as it was in OTL's Fourth Crusade.
Well there were many cities available. Thessaloniki, Ionia, and Trebizond are the first to come to mind, and if there had been a strong Emperor that survived Constantinople they likely would have recovered much better than in OTL. But decades of misrule and allowing border provinces to slip away made that impossible so they fractured badly.
Sure they had other cities, but none of those, AFAIK, were as large or important as Antioch or Alexandria were in late antiquity.