No Arab invasions: How do Byzantium and Persia develop?

A modification of my thoughts on Persia
I think Persia might have recovered a bit faster than i first thought. If you look at their final battle vs the Arab invasion they put a very organized force in the field.

Battle of al-Qādisiyyah https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_al-Qādisiyyah

Sassanid Persia[edit]
The Persian army reached Qadisiyyah in July 636 and established their highly fortified camps on the eastern bank of the Ateeq river. There was a strong bridge over the Ateeq river, the only crossing to the main Sassanid camps, although they had boats available in reserve to cross the river.

The Sassanid Persian army, about 60,000 strong, fell into three main categories, infantry, heavy cavalry, and the Elephant corps. The Elephant corps was also known as the Indian corps, for the elephants were trained and brought from Persian provinces in India. On 16 November 636, the Sassanid army crossed over the west bank of Ateeq, and Rostam deployed his 45,000 infantry in four divisions, each about 150 meters apart from the other. 15,000 cavalry were divided among four divisions to be used as reserve for counter-attack and offensives. At Qadisiyyah, about 33 elephants were present, eight with each of the four divisions of army. The battle front was about 4 km long. The Sassanid Persians' right wing was commanded by Hormuzan, the right center by Jalinus, the rear guard by Piruzan, and the left wing by Mihran. Rostam himself was stationed at an elevated seat, shaded by a canopy, near the west bank of the river and behind the right center, where he enjoyed a wide view of the battlefield. By his side waved the Derafsh-e-Kāveyān (in Persian: درفش کاویان, the 'flag of Kāveh'), the standard of the Sassanid Persians. Rostam placed men at certain intervals between the battlefield and the Sassanid capital, Ctesiphon, to transmit information.

The problem is that they were still in the middle of a civil war - despite the arabs. Without the arabs they wont have any reason to put aside they differences so I expect it to continue and be worse.
 
If the Arabs didn't show up would such a situation allow the Byzantines to rest easy with regards to their eastern frontier?

I would agree with that. The Sasanid dynasty was pretty much done by this point. It would take a while before a new dynasty could reconquer the plateau, probably one of the Parthian noble houses. By this time the idea of IranShahr was pretty entrenched (also being a motivating factor for Islamic dynasties on the plateau). Here is a good 6 part video, if you got the time, of the Sassanid situation immediately before and during the conquest.

 
I always find it bizarre how overlooked the Roman-Sassanid wars are. Its a conflict as important to the shaping of the world as, say, the World Wars, or the Napoleonic Wars. It involved Eastern Romans, Persians, Arabs, Avars, Slavs, Gokturks, Berbers, and even more. It was pretty much World War Late Antiquity, but you barely hear about it, people speak more, say, the Gallic Wars, or the civil wars in the end of the Consulate.

I live in a country whose origin history has a part of Islam, and its a bit weird that they pretty much teach that Islam simply appeared, rather than the correct version where it grew in the huge power vacuum of the aftermath of World War Late Antiquity.
 
The Byzantines obviously had some residual issues in Egypt on religious issues, but without an Arab invasion, its hard to see them losing control, as the Sassanids are in for an ugly round of infighting.

At the same time, with more resources to expend, I think the Byzantines are able to make sure the Bulgars don't become a problem, and that their holdings in Italy are sufficiently supported.

I don't see them keeping control of Spania, however.
 

Pellaeon

Banned
I always find it bizarre how overlooked the Roman-Sassanid wars are. Its a conflict as important to the shaping of the world as, say, the World Wars, or the Napoleonic Wars. It involved Eastern Romans, Persians, Arabs, Avars, Slavs, Gokturks, Berbers, and even more. It was pretty much World War Late Antiquity, but you barely hear about it, people speak more, say, the Gallic Wars, or the civil wars in the end of the Consulate.

I live in a country whose origin history has a part of Islam, and its a bit weird that they pretty much teach that Islam simply appeared, rather than the correct version where it grew in the huge power vacuum of the aftermath of World War Late Antiquity.
It's not popular because it's not simply a popularized period in history. The Roman civil wars of the first century BC are or Caesar's Gallic campaigns are somewhat more popular and have been popularized.

It's a shame as you say because it is critically important to both empires and the region they ruled over and fought over.
 
Last edited:
Most likely the Byzantines secure their frontier, raid into Persia for control of modern Iraq, and work to develop it. They tend to follow the money so Italy, Spain, and the western islands of the Mediterranean will be priorities followed by Gaul. Persia eventually stabilizes and colonizes the coastal Arabian peninsula, possibly seeking greater control over East Africa/Azania looking for Rhapta and its gold supply (Tanzania? Mozambique? We're still not sure where that lost city lay). Tang dynasty forays into Central Asia find a Persian power of perhaps Zoroastrian or an evolving hybrid Christian-Zoroastrian faith likely ready to repel them if not push farther east and north. Constantinople and Persia need a break to recuperate - a mutual peace is in their interests. Neither Rome nor Constantinople ever had the logistical network to invade Persia proper but might try if given the chance.

Christianity itself may remain a Pentapatriarchy with five Popes of equal power in this timeline with Constantinople carrying the greatest prestige. That may take the faith in entirely new directions especially if Charlemagne revives European commerce as per OTL and Viking contacts continue in the same fashion...

There is also a slim possibility that the two Empires could unite - Aradeshir III was 1/4 Byzantine (Kavadh II, his father, was born to a Byzantine princess - brother of the Emperor i think) and his regent was none other than the Byzantine Emperor. Play the cards right and a Diophysite Christian Shahshahnah may emerge who could (perhaps unsuccessfully) claim *both* thrones. Although very unlikely the possibility of a resurrected Alexandrian empire just as the Dark Ages begin with a hemi-Grecian ruler might be very interesting.
 
Last edited:

Pellaeon

Banned
It seems to me if the Sassanids are broken and down the for count it could take some time perhaps decades for another dynasty to seize the Iranian plateau even if the notion of pan-Iranian identity was strong and well developed one.

The Byzantines would use the peace to invest in Italy, Egypt, Carthage, Iberia, and fortify their Balkan frontier.

Once another Persian dynasty arose the cycle of war would continue.

Until something drastically changed the geopolitical situation.
 
It seems to me if the Sassanids are broken and down the for count it could take some time perhaps decades for another dynasty to seize the Iranian plateau even if the notion of pan-Iranian identity was strong and well developed one.

The Byzantines would use the peace to invest in Italy, Egypt, Carthage, Iberia, and fortify their Balkan frontier.

Once another Persian dynasty arose the cycle of war would continue.

Until something drastically changed the geopolitical situation.

How about Persia becoming a maritime power, sort of an earlier and bigger version of Portugal? Belitung provided evidence of extensive trade between Tang China and the Islamic world by the early-mid 9th century CE and spices serve as a lucrative means of trade. Dhows were making oceangoing trips of considerable distance including away from known ports and perhaps deep into the oceans themselves. Ptolemy and others infer that Africa had already been circumnavigated no later than the 6th century BCE while gold was known to come from (both subsaharan Africa and the area known as) Azania/Rhapta/OTL Eastern Africa. Madagascar could end up a Perisan dependency or outright colony able to grow so many crops, the discovery of Australia is not our of the question either if ships venture into the archipeligos of OTL Malaysia and Indonesia as some must have to get to Belitung (or some other as yet undiscovered destination?) in in the early-mid ninth century CE.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belitung_shipwreck
 

Pellaeon

Banned
How about Persia becoming a maritime power, sort of an earlier and bigger version of Portugal? Belitung provided evidence of extensive trade between Tang China and the Islamic world by the early-mid 9th century CE and spices serve as a lucrative means of trade. Dhows were making oceangoing trips of considerable distance including away from known ports and perhaps deep into the oceans themselves. Ptolemy and others infer that Africa had already been circumnavigated no later than the 6th century BCE while gold was known to come from (both subsaharan Africa and the area known as) Azania/Rhapta/OTL Eastern Africa. Madagascar could end up a Perisan dependency or outright colony able to grow so many crops, the discovery of Australia is not our of the question either if ships venture into the archipeligos of OTL Malaysia and Indonesia as some must have to get to Belitung (or some other as yet undiscovered destination?) in in the early-mid ninth century CE.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belitung_shipwreck
Sure they'd sent trading fleets and diplomatic envoys but Persia so far as I am aware has never been a naval power or had much success in trying to be one.
 
Sure they'd sent trading fleets and diplomatic envoys but Persia so far as I am aware has never been a naval power or had much success in trying to be one.

They held colonies in Yemen and Oman, perhaps others in Somalia, and thiught difficult it would not be impossible to found more especially in Eastern Africa/Madagascar and perhaps Taiwan or the Philippines.
 

Pellaeon

Banned
They held colonies in Yemen and Oman, perhaps others in Somalia, and thiught difficult it would not be impossible to found more especially in Eastern Africa/Madagascar and perhaps Taiwan or the Philippines.
Maybe in later eras but I'm not sure how they would do so in the 8th century AD.
 
The Sassanid-Byzantine conflict already had religious reasons added to them. In the unlikely event that Persia becomes Christian I would expect the Persian sect to be at odds with whatever the Byzantines believed and more intense holy wars would result.
 
What else apart from Islam could break the Roman-Sassanid stalemate? Were they destined to have their eternal dance for control of the near east and caucusus region or could something have upset the balance the way Islam did?

A Monophysite revolt successful enough to create a separate state out of Egypt and Syria. Of course this would need some pretty exceptional circumstances to come to being but isn't completely improbable.
 
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?

Monothelitism is going to be a big thing ATL with Egypt, Syria and Armenia under imperial control. Effectively it was a political compromise to reunite the Monophyshites with the Chalcedonian church. As such it was proving pretty successful till the likes of Sophronius and Maximus the confessor rose against it because it wasn't pure enough for their tastes. By the 650s the popes were against it, the eastern patriarchates officially followed it and Constans having more serious things to do, like fighting off an existential threat, while not having Monophyshite subjects mostly any more, had issued imperial decrees for both sides to stop discussing it. At which point the Pope ordered him to rescind the decree and was brought to Constantinople in chains for his troubles. Things would be settled down with an ecumenical synod rescinding Monothelitism in 681 and none bothering with it again, with the Monophyshite east gone there was no point to the compromise.

But ATL to political reasons are still there, the doctrine is making big inroads in the east in reuniting the Monophyshites with the church and Constans entirely practical over theology, hence will be bringing the Pope in chains in support of Monothelitism just as he did to have everyone stop arguing over it. Which might lead the interesting things like a call it neochalcedonian orthodox east that has reabsorbed most of the Monophyshites in schism with a dyothelite west, or at least the west beyond the imperial borders, Constans can probably find a pope as accommodating as Honorius after all...
 
Linked to the political and religious matters that had been discussed I think that the linguistic factor would be very interesting to 'explore': From the this ATL where would be placed the Latin-Greek linguistic border and if would be the same than in OTL to the evolution/survival from new Romance languages in the Balkans (at least in Dalmatia) and mainly in North Africa (Carthage).
I guess that the Berbers language had two possible ways in this ATL would: being assimilated/fussionate with the. bigger prestige language (the Cathagian Latin) or at least if achieve to survive, they would have a great influence from the Latin.
Guess that would be written in the Latin alphabet rather than the Greek...
About the Middle East I guess the Greek would continue being the bureaucracy/administration language, but I guess that would be increasing challenged how the only literary/culture prestigious language by the risen and expansion of the use of the Syriac language and the Coptic, in Egypt, linguistic and religious expansion to the south.


Finally, both the Sicily case with a strong Greek language influence and the Iberian that would be linked to Mauritania Tingitana/Transfretana linguistic situation/evolution would be very interesting because I guessed that, in this ATL, would be speaking, if not the same at least very similar Romance based languages.
 
A Monophysite revolt successful enough to create a separate state out of Egypt and Syria. Of course this would need some pretty exceptional circumstances to come to being but isn't completely improbable.

Or a Nestorian revolt creating an independent Mesopotamian state. Or both, for extra fun.
 
Top